The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998 Planning Commission Packets�' - �, t'`� � r� I `-� �Nlou�ns V�w PLA�r1v�rG Co�nssTOv ; January 7, 1998 7:00 P.ii�1. REGULAR �VIEETIN T AGENDA l. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: a. October 15, 1997 b. November 5, 1997 c. November 19, 1997 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the A�enda ----------------------------------------------- -- - - - - --------------- CITIZENS: BEFORE SPE�KING, PLE�SE COME TO THE PODIUM, �YD GIVE YOUR FULL Nr,uVIE A��tD :�,DDRESS FOR THE I�INUTES 5. Planning Case No. 511-97 2535-2585 Hi�hway 10; conditional use permit for flower mart Applicant: Linder's Greenhouses, Inc. 6. Sta.ffReports/Information Items a. Comprehensive Plan Update Community Forum (written report) b. 35W Coalition (verbal report) 7. Chairperson and P(anning Commissioners Reports 8. �djournment - - �. �`� ..�.'�.,' _ L� c-..+ � . � i� ._�.`_c.x+'E'r:-' ___ . . .._.__ .. . _ ._ ._____ ... �___. .___ �_�'__. � _� _- __i 1'_' �� -: _.__ �iS.:�L REQUEST FOR PL�vNING CONfIVIISSION ACTION Meeting Date: Staff Report by: Planning Case No.: Jarivary 7, 1998 James Ericson, Planning Associate 511-98 Request: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Pernut to allow for outdoor plant and flower sales at Moundsview Square Shopping Center. Petitioner: Location: PIN No. Zoning/Land Use: Applicable Regulations: Peter Linder, representing Linder's Greenhouses, Inc. 2535-2585 Highway 10 (Moundsview Square Shopping Center) 3 0-23 -07-11-0079 B-4, Regional Business District / Shopping Center Section 1115.04, Subd. 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code states that "Open or outdoor service, sale and rental as an accessory use" is a conditional use in the B-4 zoning district, requiring a CUP to be obtained. , Section 1125.01, Subd. 3b of the Code states that "in granting a conditional use permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan and upon the health, safety and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands" and shall make the following applicable fizidings: • The use will be sufficiently separated from residentially-zoned land. • The use is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City. • The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code. • The use is not in con#lict with the Comprehensive Plan. • The use will not create traffic hazards or congestion. Attachments: Planning AppIication Location Map Site Plan Greenhouse Design Interior Specifications Letter from Applicant Letter from Properry Owner Resolution 534-98 � ;__= _ _ 1 Linders Greenhouse Staff Report �� Planning Case No. � 11-97 January 7, 1998 Page 2 ' :I ,: � Background: Peter Linder, representing Linder's Greenhouses, has applied for a conditional use pernut (CUP) to allow the operation of an outdoor sales operation at Moundsview Square. Linder's was previously issued CUPs for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 growing season. No changes are proposed in the location, layout and operation from previous years. In his letter of application, Mr. Linder requests that the City consider allowing the operation to hook up to a fire hydrant on the property in order to get water for the flora. This was done last year and years past with no associated problems. The charges for permitting such water usage include a$100 hydrant deposit, a$20 wrench deposit and a$20 adapter valve deposit. These deposits are refundable. The appiicant's request to connect to the fire hydrant has been approved by the Department of Public works, subject to receiving the appropriate deposits. In addition, the appIicant will be billed $1.40 per day for water service, which should more than exceed the actual cost of water utilized. Analysis: i�Ir. Linder is expecting to operate the Flower Mart from April 15 to June 30, 1997, but would like the CUP to be effective from March 15 to July 1�, 1996, to accommodate for seasonal fluctuations and assembly/disassembly. Linder's Flower Mart is a perennial Mounds View business, having been at the same location for the past five years. Staff is not aware of any problems associated with this operation. The flower mart will be located at the edge of the Mounds View Square parking lot, alongside of Highway 10. The closest residential neighbors at this point are the homes behind the shopping center and the Wildwood Manor senior apartments across Highway 10 to the south. The residences, separated from the flower mart by the shopping center and the highway, should bear no discernable impact from the use. The flower mart meets the needs of the residents of 1�tounds View in that there are no greenhouses within the City. The zoning for the shopping center is B-4 (Regional Business District) which allows outdoor sales as a conditional use. The area of Moundsview Square is identified as Highway Commercial within the City's Comprehensive Plan, a desi�nation consistent with the shopping center and proposed flower mart. Traffic in the area should not increase as a result of this use as it will draw much of its customer base from the Moundsview Square shoppers and commuters traveling east and west on H'ighway 10. The geenhouse will not interfere with the internal circulation of the shopping center and the loss of the parking spaces will not create a shortage of parking stalls on the premises. Given these considerations and the previous eYperience with Linder's Greenhouse, sta�feeis approval ofthe conditional use pernut is appropriate. Recommer►dation: Adopt Resolution 534-98 recommending to the City Council approval of the conditional use permit for Linder's Greenhouses with stipulations as to starting and znding dates, hours of operation, li�hting and signage. - N `.DAT.-1\GROUPSICOMDEVIDEVCASE51311-97U INDERS.PC �: � APPLICANT: ADDRESS: CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PI.ANNING APPLICATION •;;�. Street Address, City, State, and 2ip Code Interest in Property (checic appropriate box): ❑ Owner of Property ❑ Contracf for Deed Owner � Lesses, Operator, Manager Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other (explain) �Las-�S C3 Phone - � � Dxumentary evidence of epplfcanYs (nterest In the property may be required belore final City action oi this request. PROPERTY INVOLVED• Address/General Locatic Lega1 Description or Property Identification �ega! Owner: Name/Address 2' er u� Present Use (check appropriate box): ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant � ❑ S(nglo Family Dwolling ❑ Duplex/Two Famify Dwelling ❑ Multi-Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establfshment � ❑ Other (explain) Property Ciassfication: REQUEST: � *Please note: Applicant ❑ Abstract be responsible for ❑ Torrens fees f HEAEHY DECLAAE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE with the *,t****�* �t**,e**,r*,r***,r*,r+r*,►*,r,r#**,rw,r:,r,r****,r*,t,r,r,rr,r,r,r,r*s*xs ***,�,r** S*9* a**,rre *x,r*** * ***,r�*** * *� Rezoning Varlance . Conditlonal Uso Permit Code Appeal Develop./Site Plan Review Mlnor Subdbision Major Subd(vislon Comp. P�an Amendment Wetland Alteratlon Permit Wetland Buffer Pe�mit Planning Slgn PUD PUD Amendmertt 5200/acre, minimurt; S2W, ma�dmum $1,000 R-1 to R-Z - S75. all otfiers SZ00 R-1 to R-2 - 575, dl othern 5200 S75 S1 QO/acre, minimum 100, mmdmum SSQO S15o 5250 plus $250 deposit S20o S50 plus deposit determined by StaN S10 S50 5350 $150 Park Fund Ded(catlon Fee Oate Peid Receipt Num6er Total Fees Paid Date Paid Receipt Number Additionel Fee Paid Date Paid Receipt Number : � �� / %G� Dete of flnal action APPROVED � OENIED Q TABLED � Oata _ '�J -11 ^ � "� Planning Case No. � � � ' � ? 1 Admin. Account No. �. � ��J Lo ' ca��on Ma .�- p ... . ......... ... .... �. ...,... ............. ......... ..... ................ ............ .............!! :1.'f,l.��..f::.' 1::::.:::s A1)1:, f:::::}}!. : :;'f!: :'f;:f:ff::;:!):I1.:':f: . .... .......... .... ...... ......... ............... ...:..:..:.. >.:::'::: ...., %..�.. . ..,. . . �� )fflf::f. . . . ........ ....: ...... ....�.;;. ............... ....• .�. ..�:' ......... .....: :::: . ...5.. " }f�.. .:.'1' :.':f.'. f."f:�:!�1;.' f{;..� .f1�: .: .. ��........ ... ,. �� ..;; �:_.. :� �.:��I� (:...,: r�: �:':'�;:;:::: i[ �,.,_.. _. . � r�,� i.. t i ts a... ._i i r r. � r i �� -f-�;-,-: . � �—�_— , ; : �, /� ;s ,: � � � ' _._ : : �J _ _ . l - , _ _.._ � , ,, ,._ I , w . ,, ,. , , , _ j— _ /�� _ �J _ ' �� ':i: �::: �� sJ! .�! I . . --_. � ' c I _ '' . �. ' . �:_ � .,: .. -.: ��' '� . .... �.. . . . _. ._. . . . - .... . , ... . , .. ...... ,.:..:. P,. ... ... ..... ..� . .. ....:.I .. .._,., .,. . :��: . :. ....;_, � , „ . . ... . . ... � , ;: � �: , � _ c�7� �� p ' ,. ..,.I :.: �� :: ;I .`i i� r—r ' O � F'""' . :' . , ..... �:,! ': :: � -.� �+_^._."'°' .;.....: ., f . ......' ...:.�� ' - �.. ..�:�: , �'�� ... � . . . .. , ��.;. ,.. ;,'.„ � \ ' .. .�, . . . .. �. � ,. .' ,.: ' :- : ��.:. \� � � � : ,: ,.. '�-: � � � G�. co L' � - l — „ . .. . ,. ..: . m N N , , �! ,, � : � �. � r � . � �{ i � _ _�.r , -�=�..- � � � � � �` , �---..r- �. �--.�-� � :; � _ � � ; „�;, � ,.s , : . ,; � �t ; ?! i � , � � � r; u s 7 - � 3,; � �� .:: �._ f �� _._.�.��1 �: . , �,_�� :�_`_��. �li �, � � ; �' �- , :� � � � � E , c f ' `, �.. _ '''� �I :.7 — i�. ' � I i �_�.e,.�—..— �..._. __ . 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 �iiles � Planning Case: 511-97 Applicant: Linders Greenhouses Meeting Date: January 7, 1998 � �I I , , � Moundsview Square Parcels W N � E ..................... ..................... .................... . . .............. .... ................... ........ .........� ..................... . ..... ............ . .................... � :� - �� !w - . � � . , i.y� � j � I , ;_-.-- ---�-�! ; i1�i� , '-,,�Ilf�if�l II:I, _�: �� 1�� 1 ,,,, '. 1 I 1 c i �JJ �'� � �� .\ . . � ,�tiC`..� . . • ` •.:��}�;�' --- COUNTY RO{1D � .: � � ,( � . .. 1 Y�:,T: { :±�,� . ,' , .� .�,}::� �. � ': .. 1(1�M� � • , � ., . ..�• 'I '. i i � 1 1 f.L�.,1 �..��t : •. � . , •r�. �•Yi� iit�c.Fy, �Y r . . . . j", ir,i�,� •.r1i- ;�il �. . , i ' •: ' f i . Y. '.I. ' �. JI � � l�. y ��.. . �; `�� i � . r. .� �. '�� , � ' errre• �+u� • � i r .� ��r , . : . _ : � ~~ • ' �1 •� ) i0 •I � �/� �1 � � �!� ' I f,1o� lR • '�' _ �. AOOQf ^'•'_ _ . • bj`, II , i; x� �' '� "� � i. � I I I I �•� ��= . .. _ .�; ��,;; � �� ,: :;�: s. __ . �,;; ,,�� .�-0 ; �� .1:�. .� s �• �. ..� •.�ti.?^'4 � '. I. I �� -' �-�� f---�- � \\ � �tp . \ .,,� �..o ► � 3� � D�SG / �1�F � \ i'__ �i \ . f�1 �� , '� ��O �� \ 4i,,�i L� ►�0�5 � ��-�`N C.R. �fa4.T Z I K �p ' �. ' �j i tRO..a� ,. . � '►��f11 ,� . . ;, �.,, 2b � . ;.=� , 1 . ' ""°'i� , . �(ti`. � 1 � '.IT� � ( IuAO'i ' YOVIE.f � aAlEf 1.� . �� 'r. � E ;'.E. ; y r. . ( � �;. •r� � � .� . . ..�,�.; � `�..L.1_W� 1 I I I I I I! i �' � 1 I I I I n't;r� , � '�► r. �; �'�'�. � .. ,� i. r 7 ' �., i •. � .�'?�• ��.: : :: �, . . A � N �• � _ � ' . . . • . � .I jl aM•� •� 1 .�,•?�. '�t!`. ,� ;:�- � +-�f 1 I � :� ;� 'a .. ;��-I-If .� ;�, � I. f, f '' °'' � j ' '' � ; : � :� '"Z�i.,,� �>. ,� ••I � � �/ �1 � 5 •ij,i�' = af !1. .�� 4 r� j•Y IA • I� �y l)r ,.i � 1 : ;� . t ;_... ��: :, '� . r• iJ ' I `, . �.,., �,r`: �r,.. 4 '{ f .i ��: � \'� ._... -,�e.�a:.:r . _ ,,;i�C f t- \�` A1R��.. � � .. s� � .. eca�� iM f�er .' � a :e �o �oo :oo.' m r�� . ; i. ,...; , .: � w� ;: �.• ;�•. , t��j,.. -� :� �:. '�'�'° � r;t� n� . :M� •�ii .,f. :.j. �!yy, . yi .��dJ . , ;��, �.�' �� u yrL�1 . . ,.:�'tY �{'�, =:re ',,, �,q�'. , �i` ��,;:, �;. .'� -; ; .;:•. ,• '' .. • f .� i � , � � �� 11..: � � , �, �� . � ,. � t� . . � .�� ,o . � . � � �� v , -Z . ' J . . . . � 'tJ. . O .. . � � � Q� � � 7 � c� `� • � � �* g� � � � � , � � /�� . �--�, , , . . '� : �� .', � y 1_�, U�O� , �`�3'�RY ..' � �� I c w �'t_. ��`� / � .� �� :f �� J , W \ � 1 , � ,�;�� . �-,.::� . ` iu� ;;�:t' _ . � � �� : .� � � �`�- � .... � . � �- � �� ` _ rY ��► i,r u�_ �> z F�, iJ�� / , ��, �. . ;r. u Ct � ,,; _.---_. . � �. �• �� _ � �' ��, -� _ -ri�-i � v . n� , N �� ,� i) v� � v z !- . i,; w � � i- f_Y_ <� � � [� I�.1 � � E� l�, t� � L7 Z J f�� CORPORATE OFFICES 275 W. Wheelock Pkwy. St. Paul, MN 551 � - (612) 488-671 i � , � Fax:488-5726 VTER & FLOWER MARTS Rick Jopke - Community Development Director � � � City of Mounds View 2401 NE Hvvy. 10 December 2, 1997 � . � � � ...� . Moundsview,,MN SS112 . � � � . � . ,- � .. � _- _ . . . . Dear Mr. Jopke, �� . � . . - � . . � _ � . ^ - . _ � Attached to this letter is my application for a Conditional Use permit for our Flower Mart at the � Mounds �ew Square Shopping Center_ I would Iike to state that the Flower Mart at this loca,tion has been very successfui and we hear many customers comment that they are happy to have us here. As far as I know there ha.ve never been any problems with our being here and we feel we are good neighbors for the shopping center and the community. We are eager to return for our Fifth successful year in Mounds �ew. . " You will note that nothinig has changed from last year and we will operate in 1998 the same as in �� 1997. .. _ , � - � .4u�' electricity comes from the pyIon in the lot near the Flower Mart. The wa'ter for our use ..• � �� comes from the hydrant to the south of the Flower Mart.� This is also the same as in �yea.rs past. It � has worked out veiy welt for us a.nd your pubiic works department. � � . Our 1998 business season is planned for ApriI 15 thru Tu1y 7, We need the same allowances for assembly and take down as in years past. I have enclosed a check for $200.00 (the same as in the past years) as the fee for this permit. I hope this information satisfies all your needs. If you have any questions please call me at 865-53 58. � We would like to e�cplore the possibiIity of obtaining this peimit for three to five years to avoid the necessity of having to process this through your planning commission and city council ea.ch Yeaz- Sincerely, Pe r� Linder - Vice President ��'2�e�c� ?le See�¢ 7lat �'k� �a�.C'c�e . � 5� � � � � ��,��T/�/ • DEV�LoP�.�vr A�rp �,�[,��;,��.F��'T o� sHOPPINC CErvTERs ==17 Gnivrrsity Ave. • St. Pau1. MN SSl ld-1677 • 412-6.td-7901 • Fsx Gl2•6.ki-13`�Y Dece�rn6er 19, 7 997 _�,� �� CENTR.4I. PLaZ� 45th & Crntra! Aya N.F (vlinncapolis, Minnesota c�YSra,r. sHOPQtcvc c�v�rr:R Bstss 1.ake Road Xc Watit Arvxdway , Cryseal, Mirtnesoc� DabDwaY SHOPPII�IG CENTER Smi[h & Uodd Road Wasc Sc Paui, t�i�saca LEXINGTON ?L1711 SHOPpL-S Lexingum ec [,srpcntcar Ruscville. N(innes�ta �.�roarn pL.az,� tace Hwy. 110 8c DcxJd Road Mendoca Hcighcs..ltinn�soca MaUNDSVtEW SQUARE Hwv. 10 cc I,c�ng Lalcc Road �tounds View, ldinn�u N C RT[ i W,iY S ciOPFING C�."V'TE.� Stalc H�y, 23 dc Woadlartd C:c�ie Pines..�linnaoca s�t..,.� pc.�z.� Wut ith Jtttet dc Davem Sc 1'aul, Ninn�soca Sr �� SHOPPING C�VT'L.'Z �ih�icw Blvd, dc :3th�lve. S Sc�ttlh St. PsuL 1�11nIIaoia � Mayor Duane McCarty Mounds View City Councii City of Maunds View Z401 West Hwy 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Re; Speciaf tJsa Permit Dear Mayor McCarty and Council Members; ;l � - �� . . ^ ,o,,��t �,1i �V ` ��. V� Linder's Greerthouse has requested permission to set up a temporary structure in the Moundsview Square Shopping Center parking lot from approximately ttte middle of April through late June to sell plants, shru6s, ffowers, etc. In our dealings with this organiaation in years past, we have found them tv be reliabte, clean, and their reputation for quafity products has exc�eded our expectations. We would be happy to welcame the Linder's Greenhouse bacic to Mounds View, IL is important that we work together on matters such as this to maintain and improve the selection and quatity of inerchandise oifered ta the community, which in turn will enhanc� al! of our operations. Thank you for your consideration to grant Linder's Greenhouse the above mentioned specia( permit ta do businsss a� the Moundsview Square Shopping Center. Sinc�raly, MOUNDSVIE'N SO.UARE ASSOCIATES, LLP �' �C"�'V W.R. Ban�t Agent '':: .:. .' , , ..�... . wRar,i. = -- - - ----- ` - ----- l�:v : _ ; -- - �_. , . ( RESOLUTTON NO. 534-98 ,•r CITY OF iVIOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA � " - - --�'� x: _ . "_' r:--�_�:_i RESOLUTION RECOM�VIEiVDING TO THE CITy COUNCII, APPROVAL OF '1� CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY LINDER'S GREENHOUSES, MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE; PLANNING CASE NO. 511-97 WHEREAS, Peter Linder, representing Linder's Greenhouses, has applied for a conditional use permit to conduct open and outdoor sales at Moundsview Square Shopping Center; property zoned B-4, legally described as follows: That Part Lying Northeasterly of the Centerline of State Trunk Highway 10 a. f'NE'/ of NE'/. (Subject to lloads and Highways) in Section 7, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Mound View Zoning Code allows open and outdoor sales in the B-4 Re�ional Business District with the approval of a conditional use permit; and W��REAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a) b) c) d) e) � g) Planning Application Location Map Site Plan Crreenhouse Design Interior Specifications Letter fram Applicant Letter from Properry Owner WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that the criteria for approval in Section 1115.04, Subd. 2 have been met: a. Outdoor service, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent (30°/a) of the gross IIoor area of the principal use. The shopping center contains 102,035 square feet of building area. T'he applicant proposes to occupy 2,200 square feet in the parking lot, which is 2.2% of the building square footage on the site. This criterion has been met. � b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with Subdivisions 1103.08(I) through (5) of this Title. The parking lot fronting Highway 10 does not abut an.y residentia( properties. The nearest � � ,_ -_ -.� =r �.. � �____ E:.�—==------». � .- � �� . � w,�.� �..�... �; ;i Planning Commission Resolution �34-98 Linders Crreenhouse CUP January 7, 1998 `� Page 2 " r residential property is Wildwood Manor, an apartment building for senior citizens, which would be weil screened from the proposed use by a stand of trees and separated by the intervening Highway 10. This criterion has been met. Sa1es area is grassed or surFaced to control dust. The applicant is proposing to use an existing parking lot which is surfaced with asphalt. This criterion is met. d. The provisions of Section 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. Adverse Effects: The Planning and Zoning Commission sha11 consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgement shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The proposal is for a temporary greenhouse in the pariting lot of an existing shopping center. The shopping center is surrounded by roadways and the area where the use is to be located is 1,000 feet from the nearest residential property. The short duration o£the use will result in little, if any, effect upon the surrounding area. The sale of flowers and plants is a typical seasonal business in a community such as Mounds View and it serves a community need. This criterion is met. NOW, TI�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the l�iounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: The facility shall be allowed to operate from March 15, 1997, to July 15, 1997. 2. The hours of operation of the facility shall not exceed 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Only the signage shown on the Greenhouse Desi�n Plan shall be allowed. 4. All lighting for the use shall be supplied by e:cisting parking lot lighting and supplemental interior lighting, if needed. . _ _. r' --- - - ---- --_ --- - - . �.... .�-_:_ _ - _ .. _ � _ _ _ _ . . iy__ , =n_ _ «� _ __ � � Plazuung Commission Resolution �34-98 Linders Greenhouse CUP . .� January 7, 1998 �'` Page 3 5. The applicant shall pay a$100 deposit to use the fire hydrant in the parking lot and pay a�20 wrench deposit and a$20 adapter valve deposit, if one is needed. 6. The applicant will be charged � 1.40 per day for water service, to be paid by the applicant before any deposits are returned. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs sta.fi to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of 7anuary, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Attest: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (Seal) �I:�DATA\GROUPS�COMDE V�DE VC.�.SES1511-9TLINDERPC.RES . � � - f=.; � ---_- --- _ ., �_: �-__ ____-_ _ - - z. l - - - �_., _ �_ �" __� - _ - _ : C�ty of Moundg .�aw S#aff Report :� S. 1 a9A Plannin�_Gbnfn�lsslon Mo�tl Item No._( a� Staff Repo�-t No. PC98-1 ltem TitfeJSubject: BACKGROUN D - -- - - ._ �. � : _ � _. y== _. � Comprehens�ve Plan Update Community Forums Over the past few months the Planning Commission has discussed the schedule for updating the City's comprehensive plan in 1998. The first task for the Commission is to candud community forurns to solicit citizen input about the community. At past meetings the Commissio� has recommended that 3 community forums be held. One in tfie area north of Highway 10, one for the Highway 10 corridor, and the third one in the area south of Highway 10. According to the schedule these three forums would be held in February, March and Aprii. The next step is to decide specific dates, place, order of the forums, and format for the Forums. Staff is checking on the availability of school facilities and wifl report the results at the )anuary 5"' meeting. In terms of the order of the forums, staff would recommend that the Highway 10 corridor meeting be held first to fit into the Highway 10 design theme proces5. The order of the other two may depend an school faciliry availability. I have attached a copy of a suggested agenda for the forums for Planning Commission discussion. In general there would be a general overview of the community by staff followed by informal small group discussions, and then a wrap up to summarize issues. STAFF REtOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission discuss and set specific dates, place, order, and format for the community forums. Staff will then work on publicizing the forums. Staff Report by: Rick Jopke, 717-4021 A:\11-5-97. RPT __.. ...� �.. ...� . -.�., _. __ P . 03 PUB�,IC MEETING FORMAT (DRAFT) I. WELCOME (PLf1NNING COMMISSION CHALR) II. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (STAFF) A. WHAT IT lS B. WHAT IT CONTAINS l. REQUIRED ELEMENTS 2. OPTIONAL ELEMENTS III. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF C�MPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS IV. DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING DISTRICT (STA.FF) A. BOUNDARiES B. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS C. EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS D. ISSLTES V. GEYERAL DISCUSSION OF ISSUES (S�1�fALL GROUPS) (PLANNING CON111�IISSION AND CITIZENS) A. POSITIVES B. NEGATIVES � VI. CLOSiNG AND THANK YOU (PLANNING COMNiISSION CHAIR) (STAFF) ; - _ - - -- - . - _ - _�i; JJ � � ; PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: January 21, 1998 Meeting Date: January 16, 1998 There are no agenda items for the January 12, 1998 meeting therefore unless the commission objects I would suggest that the meeting be cancelled. The next scheduled meeting is February 4, 1998. At that meeting Carol Swenson from the Uruversity of Minnesota Design Center for American Urban Landscape will be present to talk to the Planning Commission about her group's work with the North Metro I35W Coalition and to get input from the Commission about what issues should be looked at in this process. Staff is continuing to work TOLD Development on their proposal to develop a Walgreens store at County Road I and Highway 10. The proposal is not complete yet but may be ready for Planning Commission review on February 4th. Staff will also present the backround material which will be " presented at the comprehensive plan update community forums. I have been able to reserve the cafeteria at Pinewood School on February 18, and the cafeteria at Edgewood School on March 18 and April 8 for the comprehensive plan update commuzuty forums. February 18 was the only date Pinewood was available so the first community forum should be for the area north of Highway 10. April 8 is not a normal meeting date but the normal April 15 meeting date is "tax day" which might cut into attendance. If the April 8 date is a problem, let me know and I will reschedule to a different day. N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDBV�PLANCOMM� 1-16-98. YIEM _ _____ - , - � > - -- ° r �:__�y-- __... _-�.�.�;.-- -- " w_._:�� : � ._:-- —° ------- ---- ' ' --= - �- - ; i i PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2410 Highway 10, 1. Call To Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson 1997. 2. Roll Ca11 Members present: Chairperson Peterson, C,� jt Miller, and Stevenson. Nlembers absent: Commissioner �.�iert and G€�u 3. `�Sloi:lr`,CS Also present: Commumty �� °r,�opment;�lrector J Kathy Hix sitting in for Rer.<��,z.�;i ��av.�:�ix. Special Meeting December 17, 1997 Mounds ;�i�w City Hall ��?�pme:75..:;��eW� MN 55112 00 p.rn., , rooks, Johnston, ��:x�oopmeiners. Planning Associate Ericson, and C►t�ze�n Reques�� :a�� (C��urrnxrr�� ; ��>�ot on the Agenda > t��e no citi�r� � i.;��.« t:cs or copr�inents on items Not on the agenda. Indes to IVIi[�� . Planning �ase�No. S�z Req.u�st to have the Ac��stments and Ap �:::t��'oposed Tobacco �b0. �-Tigfiway 10 (Silver View Plaza). i��;�bmmission, acting as the Board of �ttierpret the Zoning Code in reference to in Silver View Plaza. Page 2 Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting 4. Planning Case No. 509-97 2560 Highway 10 (Silver View Plaza) Applicant: Mahmoud Abughweili Request to have the Planning Commission, acting as the F interpret the Zoning Code in reference to a proposed Tob The applicant, Mahmoud Abughweili, was not Associate Ericson ;ave his presentation as foll December 17, 1997 Page 2 of Ad�u��'ns ��d Appeals, , < ��op ir►�t�� :>;:;��i Plaza. Mr. Abughweili has requested permission to o��i1 a tof�� Ef which is zoned B-2, Limited Business Distrir,�;>::��ince "tob��?� of the permitted uses in this district, stai�'t� �z��i��:s;uidance Commission on a code interpretation �ether �� t�c�� ;�;ch �. u Some of the permitted uses 1 2 3 4 Ot'f� applic drugstores convenience sty video stor�s <:::.. ;�ni��.i1 outle� ��7 uses; r� �✓ill sel the as 5ilver View Plaza, ;:is not listed as one e Planning ld be allowed. neighbor- hood business needs. businesses are allowed to sell tobacco products. The it tobacco products. As,��iate �� i��r�� ;�d that'it is staf�'s recommendation that the Planning Commission, a��ing as the ��:�;�:,��`:��ustments and Appeals, find that a limited retail use offering to �he public tobacci�:;:�raducts shall be considered a drug store for the purpose of interpreting the ��7nirig Code, until such time that the Zoning Code is updated and a specific referen�'to tobacco shops is added. r�� <<� + r��ke added that this type of use is also similar to the other pernutted uses in _�,.t= :<<ripact. Because of these similarities this use should be allowed in this Business Commissioner Stevenson sugjested that the language referring to the rec�uest read "similar usage" and not "drug store" as had been suggested in earlier discussion. - -; : . k w- � — ----- _.. �; - _. . -- — �- c------- ----. _ �w � � ---- -- : -- - -- -- — --=--- - _ : v�. Mounds View Planning Commission Special IVleeting � December 17, 1997 Page 3 Commissioner Johnston suggested that no specific reference to business type be made other that limited use in the B-2 criteria. Commissioner Brooks stated that she was in favor of not permi�a f operate because of the impact that this type of business might }�,��yY� �� community and the fact that people are not smokin�.;�;��uch a� s;� �: �; ,: Commissioner Brasaemle argued that the pr�;cc-�t��t had alr:.��iy bc �.' ;><;.:>:� selling tobacco in the business district and thai: il :. Ar, no ��d reasor� request. Commessioner Johnston stated that the appli front advertising the coming tobacco store. Associ�te Ericson told the Commissio Chairpe�-son �eterson suggested ,t�iat a t��zsiness to ldren in the i�o. �I ��ff; �ut up signs in the store no�. r��z> ��ry on the request. ;;�;��i:::��ie request. Motion/Second: BrasaemleBroolcs �E� ��rove;�� Code imt�rpretation as made by the Planning Commission, acting as the Boa� d c�� K�jias�me�f� and Ap�als, on Planning Case No. 509-97, 2560 Highway 10 (Silver View ��.�a), requ�� or pec-r�€ssion to operate a tobacco shop as a pernutted use: iz� the B-2 i�rt�_�;a< <' �'t�.sines�>>';¢��-��:�<�er discussion. � Motion car-rie�': 5. ;:�faff Repo Items Nays - 0 �irector Jopke t:vld fhe Commissioners that meeting timeline submissions for Planning Commission me�tiing dates for 1998 needed to be set. A resolution outlining the dates was furnishe.d::;�o the Commission for their consideration. i�:::��`Brasaemle/Miller to recommend approval of Resolution 533-97 as presented to �n. Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. Highway 10 Corridor Design Theme (verbal report) �- � �.� _ _ .�n C�- �-- ---,__. ��.------ _____: ': � � . � : �� " ---- - - �� _ � w-- - - - ' - = - -- - -° Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting Director Jopke addressed the Commission as follows: December 17, 1997 Page 4 The City has selected the firm of Hoisington Koegler Group as the consult��;>�o help Mounds View in the Highway 10 Corridor Design process. A sc,c�;�� oi s�vices was passed out to each Commissioner. Workshops and fo�us group� �,� ti� �,�en scheduled to help this design process. Commissioners Brooks an�:��?�Ciler h�v� �;��r,.;e;,�ed their time : ,, ::,. and efforts to assist in the design process. �� :.;.>; . .::: , _;. °> °�< ><.;_�.' Chairperson Peterson asked if the Highway l��r_ric�or I��sign wa �� c� �� f,;�; ,��b the ring road. _ _ _ __ Director Jopke stated that the focus is a design t�"��;,;,i;�c; �;�`; month time frame for the design theme with ant��ier thi eP;;�;� actual design guide. The ring road is �oir�s>; � �� 'a�;i.;,c,luded a�, Director Jopke announced the resig��u��'�� ;,��neii. Comprehensive Plan Update Director Jopke A new work plan s s�a�� <<� to the I� ; -:.. 3�� : < �.'._ �, i_ ord�e3 � I'� C�lal birector Jopke additional $8-10 P1an.Update. < � as way 10. There is a three ;��i;��lanned to develop an r � €�i`':�his design process. s not�d �`��c;; ��rriprehensive Update documents have to be .:::. by th�:�� ,��` `i 998, and a draft has to be ready by the end of �7oundin� com�nunities a chance to react to the changes that funds that are being paid to the consultants have been �::��iat there is approximately $10,000 from the 1997 budget and an in the 1998 bud�et for consultants involved in the Comprehensive aeo° Johnston asked how TIF funds were going to be used in the Fair on Plan: Are the funds used throughout the whole City or just in specific Director Jopke stated that the whole City is eligible for the TIF funds. Neighborhood Meetin.g . _ _. ia_ . _ _- �= �-� _��-�. - ` - �--�� -- . - � Mounds View Planning Commission December 17, 1997 Special Meeting Page 5 6. Director Jopke addressed the Commission as follows: A meeting was held December 16, 1997, with the Townhome Association Lake Woods. The Association has expressed concerns about tr��;:�t�ng �-o:a� and the extra traffic that these developments might bring to thei�';�i��t�€i�i- .. . Associat�on stated that all of the concessions made �:.:�'�;� have ��i:;�3�.�g ::� south of County Road H-2. The Association is pr�sing that tl��s ��t�i��'; Lake Road should not be there, and in fact, acce� �hould be.:_��ii��z�c1' �i k; H-2. _ ..... SRF was asked to review the traffic flow issue ��. alternative ideas. The Townhome Association h the City staff on the development. Chairperson and Planning Commi There were no Chairperson or 7. Adjournment to Agenda There being no further bu�i be�o�� ?��e Spec,��'Meetii thr �� '��g �>'1:59 p.m. �i�#'n Silver ; `theater project ood. The d to the people �n to Long ;;;;�' mmendations as to any YJ��ering group" to work with of the Planning Commission, ir��r��eciz;��;:f��:y �ollowing the adjournment of the Special : - L--- =- - --- -° - __ __ _ _ __ . i` � , --1- ; --- : - -I_ PLANNING COMMISSION MEMo To: Nlounds View Planning Commission From: R�ick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Comprehensive Plan Community Forum Dates Date: January 23, 1998 After fiu-ther analysis of upcoming agenda items (i.e. the theater project, the Walgreens project etc.), I have come to the conclusion that it would be better if the comprehensive plan community forums were held at special meetings and not on regular meeting nights. In that light, I have contacted the school district and have changed the meeting dates for the first two community forums. The first fonun is now scheduled for February 11 instead of February 13 in the cafeteria at Pinewood School. The second forum is now scheduled for March 11 instead of March 18 in the cafeteria at Edgewood School. Apri18 is not a normal meeting date so I did not change that fonun date. I apologize for the confusion. If conunission members have a problem with these revised dates please let me know as soon as possible. Call me at 717-4021. We will be mailing out meeting notices to each property owner in the city, sending out press releases to the newspapers, and posting the meeti.ng dates on cable TV. If you have any additional ideas on how to get the word out, please let me know. Again, I apologize about the change in meetin� dates. N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�PLr1NCOMM\ 1-23-98.DdE?vi � i � d ._1.�..,..� C�� MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING C4MMISSION February 4,1998 7:00 P.M. . 12EGULAI� ��ETg1�i�G AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Review of Minutes: a. December 17, 1997 (re�eived in mail) � '' ` ' " ' ` t ` " '' ' � � � � � � � � � b. January 7, 1998 (enclosed) � , � � � _ , � _. , . � ,, > � 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZENS: BEFORE SP�AIQNG, PLEASE COM� TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND AI)DRESS FOR THE 1Vffi�UTES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Planning Case No. 512-97 2375 Highway 10; Development Review Saturn Development 6. Planning Case No. 507-98 Highway 10, County Road I& Eastwood Road; Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applicant: TOLD Development Company (Walgreens) 7. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Comprehensive Plan Update Community Forums (Verbal Report) 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9. Adjourrunent �. = .� k _�._ .. ----- _ . �___��_. _ !:- _- _— -. � -- n_.,..�:,� k __---. ��_ .:_ _ - � � (� W' �.t � �(�t�e.. l n c-U�,L2C� �. � c�c� — � C�_ c c�_Gl-s��rti� TV-�� uti� S ? Ci.=1.1� {�c�..�C.l_ �r�„''. � a`�-� � r� �J 2�� : �- I ,� cm �n-�-�� w ��7v � �' 1 C,� �'�-wvt. � � U , (,� � (��„r� ��e�l;'L_ �- I �S ur c.��x.�,-� ,,.� d w / ��, �� C u'R'�? �� -w�-zv�e r,-i,�.� c,d1 '�,''U_ _%� t v c%�a�u-v�� J-�1,y.s„� f �-,,,ti•ti,,.c.q; ,,,,, �7-�.,t-'v� , U �U�',)q-��Y�X:L ( L L C � c� r�4-�"l �'. C:V �._ ,k� Vl--�. ,7 o rvVV� `, c�` � LJ/�- � � 1 �� —��--�j `��_ t� �� . � i ` � „ y _ _ �1/� f O / l � r ( C P ✓ ( ( �� ,�.k l/`4l/J �� , � G,� o,�,� �,.,�,� C a,� 5 �11Je, - u P t n l��j ��r►� � �` �n e�`° 5 0 ,-a-r� � � �r�/�e �#-� -�. 7 � �� < <�� - � ��,,-,�- `„ `� ; �� , ct,� �- ��<<. �� m�� h �- w�� w� �e �a.c,f, �-� �� _ �� ,�,�-C�,�'.�, L;.,� 4u. ,�x.t-c�v�- i1.G�. 't-o l,J wk..��.e.�n"' � � � E,rw�� % c� . ��d z � �,>�- �n ( � �„ T �va.K P �� a � �SCr�V�2 � P P G�' �"� 0 � '7 � c,� d��- � t� ��'tiD �-° '�' ca�+��' ��,.- C�rw�� , �w�� `�� 1 /-. r - r �-"'T""� 1 � ��rt.tr� �� ,�-�„'�� e- 5 ul' 6 �� , _ —..- ,�_ t _ .—<-_ _ _ f --- - -- ---- -- -- �- - �-- --- - � - - -- - –� ls_'� �_ _ . _. _ ,_ . _ e MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION February 4, 1998 7:00 P.M. REGICTTLAR ME�TIN� AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Review of Minutes: a. December 17, 1997 (received in mail) b. January 7, 1998 (enclosed) �. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEI+(5: BEFORE SPEAI�NG, PL�A5E COME TO TH� PODIUM, AI�TD GIV� YOUR FU�,L NAME AND ADDRESS FOR 'i'I� MIl�TUTES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Flanning Case No. 512-97 2375 Highway 10; Development Review Saturn Development 6. Planning Case No. 507-98 Highway 10, County Road I& Eastwood Road; Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applicant: TOLD Development Company (Walgreens) 7. 5taff Reports/Information Items a. Comprehensive Plan Update Community Forums (Verbal Report) 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9. Adj ournment _ _ _ ,_ , :_ : . .___ _ _- __ _ _ _ _ . � � -- -- -- ------� - - - — -- - �: � � PROCE�DINGS OF THE NIOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ,.' CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW KAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meetira� January 7, 199fi5 Mounds,�iew City Ha➢� 2410 Highway 10, 1!%�#��9s.;;��ew, MN 5511� 1. Call To Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson::��'��: 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Comrr�issio Obert, and Stevenson. Members absent: Commissioner Johns�on (�,�c�.��;t Also present: Community Deve��ip�ment D¥�`ector Jc,;;: Council Liaison Koopmeiners; �ttd Reca�der Dave �::�i 3. Ap�roval of Minutes: ;>: }�� ; a. :)ciober �.�. I'�� h � �� . ,::enber �, ��9 7 c. ��.:� �;;�.{bet� 19; �.��` 1/ � Brooks, Nliller, a�ning Associate Ericson, City Chaurg��; h �'�� T;l aslce��; ��`�� motion to approve the minutes as listed. ��econd: Stever�a�r�f��a�rks to approve the listed minutes as amended. r��;s -' 6 Nays - 0 ca.rried. 1. .� .. i. .,>�. $,t.�i�. ��;'� ;I li il u.0 li c:� Planning Case No. 511-97, Consideration ofResolution No. 534-98, Conditional Use Permit Request by Linder's Greehouses, Inc. To Operate a Flower Mart At Mounds View Square, 2535-2585 Highway 10 Page 0 _ _ _- i _ Mounds View Planning Commission January 7, 1998 Regular Me,eting Page 2 4. Citizen Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Director Jopke introduced Julie Olsen, 2663 Lake Court Circle, the representative from the Silver Lake Woods Townhome Owners Association. Mr.� Jopke told the Commissioners that Ms. Olsen was attending the evening's meeting to addre�S��the Commission with the Silver Lake Woods Townhome Owners Ass;�ciatio�`s'concerns with regard�to the possible development of the Anthony Pra�perties' �� ..��- r� `velopment as well as the potential development of a ring road connecti��#:::��rougli �__ �,`,>�r -.. Director Jopke told the Commission that the C a meeting to discuss some of the issues and coi�c Owners Association has. On Monday, January with a recap of that neighborhood meeting. Director Jopke told the Commission that at the middle of the PUD approval process. Tl and is now waiting for the plans to be sul��. development stage review process. ..:..._ The Silver Lake Woods Tov� change in the concept plan t} because of its possible dett-�� recommended that the nn� road sho�ild be con�7r��>;r� �`��at det��t��.nent revi�� .��.}< < �,s. Lake with �Is. Olsen to(d that the Silver I what issues the December 29, l Association d�'a ; �i.o� e i}a�:::�?'��i1] ould 1 PUD i�:��ess the titi 4;-< t I:, �: ;� �taffhasx��i�l� ,- , �z��o�hc��'at � <; � I� at .i�i�' �S ilver L � ; ,�i � � �:.;z:3 t, �� .>: ""' ' 1`'i.ty Council s�� s r,� ,:�Tied � ��:.�i: y�a �;;tt� theater development is in I��?:> �pp��,i�� :��neral concept plan � I u-, deve(ap�x �o� go through the >Assoc��c;� f,'asicing the City to authorize a iate the;��s1g roacl portion of the development their t��i�ghborhood. The City Council has be.;a#��ered to. The elimination of the ring �:�ommissions are involved in the tE�� ' c:r�� xr�€��rs that a task force has been established within the Silver _ . ............... _ ... �;v;li,o�n� ��e�;�:issociation to streamline the communication process ` � �il�iil �h��` €��vri organization. ��t� ,��ssion that Chuck Whiting, City Administrator, had requested €��'�nds Townhome Owners Association write a formal letter stating �ciation wanted action taken on. Ms. Olsen referred to a letter dated which was addressed to the Mayor and the City Council. The this letter to comply with Mr. Whiting's request to bring the issue Commission. _ ',�'�I:��.�� stated that the neighborhood's concern is that A.nthony Properties has stated that they (the developer) didn't want to proceed with the theater development plan until they knew what the City's feelings were as to whether or not the City still wanted them to consider a ring road link through the theater development property. Ms. Olsen stated that the Silver Lake Woods Townhome Owners Association does not .. _-- _ - < � - �- - --= -- _ - - .. . _ _ . - . . - --- ---- � - - � �.,_ _ :_._.�. .. _ . .� .. .. �i r. . - - � .I E Mounds View Planning Commission January 7, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 3 want to be left out of any of the theater and ring road development processes. She asked the Planning Commission for their reassurance that notices would be sent for all meetings pertaining to this issue. Chairperson Peterson toid Ms. Olsen that no more formal actio� �ias theater development concept plan since early 1997. FIe add�d. �� ?,� :>:::::, > involvement of the Mn/DOT had come later in the y.,�::;;; Director Jopke agreed with Commissioner Peter��i�n and ad�� tha�. .';� involvement with the signaling of Highway 10 far;;�:iis pro�j�i��is not tic concept. The signal issue is a stand-alone iierri. �:;:;::::::;::::>;;�;:;<;:;;:; ' Ms. Olsen stated that it is the Association's und the tra�c lighting as proposed that the ring roa�E Commissioner Miller asked Ms. Ol if it is developed. j�i.:nion, 'taken on the road idea and road the developer could get �ded. e using the ring road Ms. Olsen told the Commission t�at the ri��'road �hr�� i =�� e�se the traffic on Mounds View Drive. She referred to �;,��riments t<t�t had bee� made by the developer; saying that he, too, thought that most ��;�� traffi��;t?vould be �t�tning from the south and southwest and not from the north. __ ....... Se�.�; � ��'the Cai��x;� , :;:: a,��*� } , ! . a nd up �. �3�� r C�t��r�i��,�i��ff�T,� < <<�-..�;; �� ,��, COI111I]z� I� �a'�� .>' i� �;.�r<.: Ot' wQ�.,i�` noi, l�, c�; disa� ` �oad. that the logical traf�ic flow would be �st of the people coming in to use the theater will be iew, and the side streets, such as Mounds View Drive, Commissio�x 5��;�t�k� �� referred to a traffic study that was done for the theater development. T�� study showed that traffic would not increase much on Mounds View Drive. He also;<s�g;ested that if the speed limit on Mounds View drive was kept very low people would<:�ot want to use the road. >i;�� fopke stated that SR.F, the City Engineering firm, was asked to look at the ,�;:�a.�;r development traffic study a second time taking into account the possibility oithe ��ng road connection. This study showed a 200-400 car increase on Mounds View Drive if the ring road is developed. Commissioner Brasaemle added that this recent study was made not showing a curb cut on H-2. I:' _ : , _ , ; .�. -- - ------ �x .. � ._-----•----- - --J ��_. _�_ ��-.�+ _ k �_ _ L ` , , . .. ,. { - - _._ � .1. _ -- - � _-_ _ _ � Mounds View Planning Commission January 7, 1998 Re�ular Meeting Pa e 4 Commissioner Obert suggested that it is important to keep in mind that the ring road development is just speculation and no plans have been approved by the City. He also expressed concerns that the developer could decide to abandon the project due to lack of progress on the City's behalf. . Director Jopke told the Commission that there is saying that the traffic light proposal is justified. T} be paid for. Commissioner Brasaemle said he is concerned or at least the wetland buffer zone, and just builc View. He added that the signalized intersection Liaison Koopmeiners told the Commission experienced in the theater development have 1Vlinnesota Design Center being involved.;�� developer became involved in this stu��?'�iec� Outlot B of the currently proposed;�eveloprt property, the deve(oper wanted t� �enter int�: would make a future piece of �artiperty au�ila road development. _. Mict��el Berke, 26 ��./�- <r= ; '.T'o �,vnho� �;+; ,�x., ��:.the the� �-'i from Mn/DOT �w is it going t< buil�i�� a ro��cl ;. roads in genc i a l��{ ��;�tiiids f�,ia�a,�e the need for a� ring road. t�`'some �> ��: r��is i_hat are being �e aboue �.; < r:�:€ c;ii the University of �i�'�way 10 � '�-�,+;�i 5tudy. The ��`��< �in� roat� Ys developed he will lose �� .> :�>make up for this lost <;� _�,:.'� � � ;reement with the City that to ��place che property lost to the ring Court C`�� i�,, �,;��t�ie Commission that the Silver Lake Associ� J, :>> }�;� ,>sn't have a problem with local tra�c, but the <,irnmedia.�c ar:;a. wou(d introduce non-citizens to Mounds Mistx;��::�`7��r��;jE,� �:�., "?693"��e Court Drive, stated that the traffic pianner had stated :.:::: ; � tha�;::�'a pei c�e�� :�� t�;�heater attendees would exit the theater and go out to Mounds View �rive and 30 peY ta z z�r��t�d �o out on Highway 10. He said he disagreed with this scenario becausc, �t t� �i�m�.n nature to go the fastest way possible, and in his opinion cutting across to ��ounds View Drive would be the fastest way possible. Cl��ie-�erson;Feterson said that he is still very enthused about the theater development ��A.t l�as:c,�t��rns about the traffic impact on the immediate area and the impact the ��i�nt will have on the available �reen space in the community. He added that he :�::>>:�> ��e ball was in the developers court and that something needed to be done to get the project back on track. Ms. Olsen told the Commission that the developer had made the statement that he is waiting for the City to tell him if there is �oing to be a ring road or not before he continues drawing his development plans. :. , . ______ ; .:�. _ .. .a.��..—� � . _.. . - . . . . .. _. _ ...J :. '::. �.__�. _`�_�.��_ _____—____ ___ . � -- . - . .- . . a�.«�_��-__ . i.��._ - . _ �_ . _ .._ _ . _ � s . � � - A•�: b Mounds View Planning Commission January 7, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 5 � Commissioner Miller asked if the negotiation agreement had been reached between the City and Anthony Properties for the land to replace Outlot B if the ring road development is approved. Director Joplce told the Commissioners that an agreement had Anthony Properties 180 days to negotiate with the City concen of the City-owned property on the north side of Hi��r 10, `` rea.�d that gives � Y��ile development .::::. :::- ommissioner Stevenson suggested that the rir��;:;�'oad issue:�as c]o��Y; ��;�>t l�s�in He told the Commissioners that the real issue i<� �;;�,�3 ,,�i��t �:�iccess on Lo�� ,. ,.,�> �ad is necessary or one single exit and access into the �fi ^xs� ; f�jc;ct will be sui �%c r:. Commissioner Obert stated that the theater cor�� ,�� f,a:� �t i��a: ueen approved without an access to Long Lake Road. The developer thr��aQh twb ��.��;�a�t��;siages, has not argued that point. __ . _ .._ ............... ommissioner Stevenson toid the C��ris�iissr�r�;�1�_ _�><Iccisio�:>cvill need to be made as to whether two entrances and two exit€� are need�c� ��t..,r �� f� t�ieater area. Mr. Berke stated that from ��ments rn:��e by the :;;!;:vcloper at a number of City Council meetings, that the develop� ��i� said t�{� he only �eded one entrance and e�t as long as � ::::. the signal light was appro��d on tc� �- ��; ��ay 1,Q.::;;<�� C'� :��noner ��x�,�.��r� sug�esc�;�� £�� a�straw poll to take to the City Council that �uf�,,; �->, ��te the �i��3c� �'ommiss�oner's feelings on the ring road issue. Clas�� `��r��n c��::�'�:�>straw poll based on the following two issues: d for a connection on to Long Lake Road to make the theater properly? 2. Is;;�zle idea of a ring road something that would make sense for the City? ��ore�rriission;��Brasaemle su�gested that Anthony Properties be made aware of the :��:��j� ��:�he straw poll to help them in the completion oftheir developmental drawings. ;�� c.;� �on Peterson started the straw poll with Commissioner Brasaemle: Commissioner Brasaemle told the Commission that he fe(t with the approval of a signalized intersection on Highway 10 that an access on to Long Lake Road was not necessary. He added that the ring road issue has not been investigated enough to give an opinion. He said he liked the ring road concept but this particular link of the ring road �.. _. , -_s. � . _ . _ . ` : . - �--_-- �— - .- .. . _-..4��_ �� -- - �� i. __Y�/� r.._.�.�/_ _...--- � G_�.r '.`_----"_.—_ - __ _ . . . ,.: ., � � -- ---.. _ , _. _ � - .1..�:_Y -�� -h,. . , Maunds View Planning Commission January 7, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 6 makes no sense. Commissioner Brooks answered no to the first question. She voiced her opinion in favor of the ring road concept. Commissioner Stevenson said he wanted more studi� on the access; whether or not it ended up on Long Lake Ro�::�s anoti road is not a priority for the theater development. ::;<`::�'�� Chairperson Peterson said that the connectior� � added if there was to be a connection that the d�� much because you end up with a long, long accPs ring road concept plan is a possibility but more in decision regarding this issue. He added his tend�� not the best way to deal with the traffic problerr��; iz� ;� 2i �Rt n Hi�l� es of a second ;��e said the ring �e Road i� ��, :.� � c4;h�;r''He Ived wouldn'�. i� ��,,,,��;�rily help e craffic backups. He said the �V;��eded to make a good ,�>�;:rt>F;;�s_that the ring road is Comn�issioner Nliller told the Com��loner� ��'�; � �eels t�at an access to Long Lake is not necessary to make the theat��''project �x�jr��;; �� rG17at because of the wetland mitigation issues she is not in fa�u�i�'�of the r.��i� roa�� Commissioner Obert saic�;;�:�;tt�ng as;t��'�develop�<�has agreed to proceed without a tr�c light at Highway l f� �� is the d��loper's ,t�€��iness. He said he feels Highway 10 divid�s the City ancl f'' � i �� ;�ng road ��?�� olve this problem he would be in favor of it. .>:;>:: :<: :::: . _. �'}i��°,��r ,'; �� T��i:^ �:: � 4c� >�� ommissioners that after hearing the comments made in the str��; f��li i�€�C tk�cr�=; � s�,r��€��sus that there is not a need for an access on to Long Lake 1Z�c��; � t��'i��aae ai �he �� road was not fimily opposed. It was agreed by all that so�i��}i'ing ne�t�� i � L�� one about Highway 10's traffic problems and this ring road ��iicept may or ��ia� �� i� the answer. ��f4if;i;�;:� Case No,:��:�<�-97 ��, .} I > � , �� 7 � �1 ��g1lT��'� 1 � r ,; � ' � �;fr��''s Greenhouses, Inc. C��,_:�:,,;�i_�__s �tse permit for flower mart. The applicant, representing Linder's Greenhouses, Inc., was not present. Chairperson Peterson asked the staff if there was anything different on this year's L _ __ _ _ -- _ _..� 1�-� = 3=--�- -- fr�:� �.. { .. Ly::�.``:,��- - --. . �_ ��.� ---- Mounds View Planning Commission January 7, 1998 l�e�;ular Meeting Page 7 _ � conditional use permit request from last year's conditional use permit. Associate Ericson told the Commissioners that the water usage billed to the applicant will increase from a$1 a day to $1.40 per day. Ericson added that the applicant_:;�i�s inquired if it would be possible for the City to grant the conditional use pernait,_on a;,�i�e-year basis. Commissioner Brasaemle asked if Paster Enterpris�s�;:z5>willi Linder's a five-year conditional use permit. Commissioner Obert said that parking has bee, i� �, 'kat has bee�� '< concerning the Linder's applications. ` ;i to allowing ast Associate Ericson told the Commissioners that a�,- c; :<i,�f�klitions of approval for the resolution is that the City is granting Linder's a%�e o� uIJ� E�� ;r;om a given date to a given date. There is no reason that a five ve�� i;�rmiY coulc�:��, �,� t�;�ued as long as the owner, Paster Enterprises, gives their w:r��.t*�s �i��°r�ar:ssio�l. Director Jopke reminded the C certain piece of land and not a u Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Steve��c�� '�o recommending to the City Coun�i�;;��prov Greenho�ises::with stipul��zon� a� io star�in signage, a,s �ies�ded. ,;_ _l?-'� �,� 6 Motion carried;::: Commz;�.�toner Brooks• l 6;<;:;?::;:::; Staff Reports/Z . ':`siv� Nays - 0 tifig at 9: 00 p. m. Items ��al use permit is tied to a tival of Resolution 534-98, nal use permit for Linder's es, hours of operation, lighting and :: Jopke presented newly developed Comprehensive Plan Maps and meeting schedules for the upcoming Community Forums. He offered to the Commissioners the draft of the meeting formats. These formats were described as follows: Introductory presentations by staff: 1) comprehensive zoning for the area _ : __ _ �: . _;, � _ . . - ; : -- -- -- - w _ _ � . ------ --�_: �_�_ �_.:. : r _—y =__-- - --- — - — - _ . - - - -- ._�� «�_ _ � � Mounds View Planning Commission January 7, 1998 Regular Meetin� Page � 7. 2) issues to be discussed concerning the area 3) discuss the comprehensive plan process 4) pros and cons of the community Break into small discussion groups (Planning Commissioners 5 Facilitator summarize the group discussions 35W Coalition {verbal r�nort� _._ _ ___.._... l)irector Jopke told the Commissioners that th� "i*I,t i��tro I-35W Corn�€�� alition was formed to work at the issue of joint marketin� <<-<<; ��ii.ie� along the I-3SW comdor. Rather than competing against each other it was r,b ��,�.; �� -��,�:o�-Icing together to upgrade the whole corridor would be more beneficial to a�i lhe �;; ��z� communities. The concept has expanded to include o issues of livable communities and ur�z�� comprehensive plans just to name a:�ev The University of iitinnesota. ' They will be coming to the:;�t��i discussions that will help �ci��ie Commissioners if an�:�f;�1�e PI for !! ��i: ineetin,� t� t�' ,;lel in CC � c:i�� r,: nn Directca� .��:��: �j;f Add�ts�n i'�To � ��rt` �e�elopmenti pl�t�i:; cleveloper is Nla.rtiy �;Z� >ysi>�e�:;�� bein� developed, ion.;i��'i�works and coordinating h��been }ure,� to hetp : i�e Coalition achieve their goals. t�'i�s co�i�iunities ta<�old focus groups and foster the each ,��imunitie�;�ndividual problems. Jopke asked the annir��;��it�:��on members are intez-ested in volunteering Mar�c�i :.; >::::;::. ��P��?�°i volunteered. c�, ;`f "ional information, that the developers of Red Oak bc c;oming before the Planning Commission with a proposed �'� ronstruction of 29 high-end twinhome type townhomes. The �Cad, son of Keith Harstad. A.ssociate Ericsa�n offered, as additional information, that the Saturn Dealer is planning an expansion of;��eir facility different than the plan that was approved under the original �� `-�'1�� This presentation will be before the Planning Commission February 4, C;haie•�erson and Planning Commissioners' Reports There were no Chairperson or Planning Commissioners' Reports. 8. Adjournment � _ ___ _ _ r _ �- = � � - e:;,�-, . , '- ' �_�-___ — -- i-� - — - _. . - - -- --- � Mounds View Planning Commission January 7, 1998 Regular Meetin� Page 9 � There being no further business before the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at (9:45 p.m.) �;_� ._�_ ! �-"- L � - - - -=----- -. . _:-. : ,� -_. _ . , :�. _ _ _ _�_. - - .-_--�- _ ___ ... �. . - - ° - � --- - -- - _ . . • � REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION _• Meeting Date: StaffReport bye Planning Case No: Request: Petitioner: Location: PaN No. Zoning/ Land Use: February 4, 1998 James Ericson, Planning Associate 512-98 Approval of a revised development review to allow for the expansion of the Saturn dealership Saturn Development Company, represented by Jim Price 2375 and 2395 Highway 10 08-30-23-31-0001, 2, 3 B-3, Highway Business Commercial / Saturn Auto Dealership Applicable ltegulations: Section 1006.06 of the City Code, entitled "Development Controls," requires that all proposed industrial, commercial and residential developments and expansions of existing facilities ... must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Resolution 5042 (approved 12/9/96) Site Plan, 8'h x 11 Site Plans, date-stamped 1/9/98 (separate attachment) Background: A subdivision and conditional use permit to allow development of the now existing Saturn dealership at 2375 Highway 10 were approved in 1992 (Planning Case No. 335-92). The conditional use was amended in 1994 to allow the addition of 45 caz-for-sale parking stalls, and associated lighting and landscaping on the site (Planning Case No. 389-94). The conditional use permit was amended again in 1996 to allow for car wash on the site. At the same time, a development review was approved which allowed the dealership to expand onto the adjacent Citgo station site (Planning Case No. 464-96). The resolution approving the CUP amendment and the development review (Resolution No. 5042) is attached to this report. The dealership did not implement the approved expansion and now wishes to go forth with a different design which requires review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. i=='° ::�__�>�. �--- ------- Planning Case No. 512-98 2375- 2395 Highway lb February 4, 1998 ' Page 2 Analysis . � ____ -�- � - - ._ _. _ �: - _ . ;_ . _— . _ :�;. . � � =_�- , . , The proposal represents an extension of the existing Saturn dealership. The applicant will maintain the same architectural character in the building expansion as is in the original, and will be landscaping the added site area so the effect will be one seamless development. A11 areas which are not in building or landscaping will be paved and the parking area will be bordered by a concrete curb. The applicant has provided a revised site plan, landscape plan and building elevations date- stamped 1/9/98, to show how they propose to expand the Saturn dealership. A comparison of the 1996 approved site layout and the proposed site layout is noted below: Site Area Building Area Total Impervious Area Landscaped Area Parking Spaces - display/inventory - employee/service - customer Total Number of Service Bays Car Wash A roved 1996 Pl n 3.276 acres, or 142, 703 sf. 11,080 sf. 109,097 sf. (76.5%) 3 3, 606 sf. (23 . 5%) 126 35 20 181 10 one bay Pro osed 1998 Plan 3,276 acres, or 142, 703 sf. 15, 063 sf. 109,097 sf. (76.5%) 33,606 sf. (23.5%) 121 10 45 176 11 one bay The primary difference between the approved 1996 plans and the proposed 1998 plans is that the building expansion is now located on the east side of the building instead of the west side. The car wash would remain on the west side, however. The proposed expansion is about 33 percent larger than what was approved in 1996, although the amount of impervious surface on the site is not expected to change as a result. There would be a slight reduction in parking provided, dropping from 181 to 176. The only other change from the 1996 plans is the addition of one more service bay, bringing the total number proposed to eleven. -- -_ 4-=---- ------ - - -- - - - - � ---- •_ . . �:' � - =� L _ ------- - -- �-�------ --_ � . =3 - --=- _ __ _ . i � _ Planning Case No. S 12-98 , 2375- 2395 Highway 10 February 4, 1998 ' Page 3 ' Dimen ionai Re�t ir� ements• Building Height: Building Setbacics Front (Highway 10): Rear (County Rd. I): East Side: Parking Lot Setbacks Front (Iiighway 10): Rear (County Rd. I.) East Side: Parking spaces Customer: Employees: �UP Requirement� R ir r vi Met/Not Met S 45 feet 20 feet Met 30 feet 115 feet Met 20 feet 37 feet Met 10 feet 60 feet Met 3 0 feet 3 0 feet Met 5 feet 6 feet Met 5 feet 10 feet Met 22 spaces 45 spaces Met 27 spaces 10 spaces Not met According to Section 1114.04, Subd. 8 of the City Code, motor vehicle sales operations such as the Saturn dealership shall have a conditional use permit approved by the City Council. Saturn's CUP was issued in 1992, amended in 1994 and again in 1996. To staff's knowledge, there have been no problems associate with the operation. The requirements and standards associated with vehicle sales CUPs applicable to this development review request are as follows: a. Motor Vehicle sales shall be on one (1) lot or contiguous lots not separated by a public street, alley, or other use. This requirement is met, subject to receiving documentation from Ramsey County indicating the three lots have been combined . b. The minimum lot width shall be one hundred fifly (150) feet at the minimum required front yard setback. Saturn's front footage along Highway 10 is approximately 660 feet. This requirement is met. c. � A minimum lot area of two acres is required. The total site area included in this development is 3.276 acres. This requirement is met. Setbacks shall be as required in Section 1104.01, Yard Requirements for B-3 Zoning Districts. The proposed setbacks exceed Code requirements. This requirement is met. e. The entire site on which the operation is located, other than that devoted to buildings, structures or landscaped areas, shall be surfaced and maintained with a material to control dust, drainage and erosion. The entire Saturn site wilI be covered in either an impervious surface (asphalt or buildings) or landscaped surface (plantings, sod and trees). This requirement is met. � - Planning Case No. 512-98 2375- 2395 Highway 10 February 4, 1998 Page 4 f. A drainage system, subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed and maintained and shall comply with the provisions of Chapters 1103, 1010 and 1302 relating to Surface Water Management. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans dated 1/9/98, but found them to be lacking in sufficient detail to warrant a qualified response. In a letter to the applicant dated 1/22/98, staff requested that more detailed information with regard to on-site drainage be provided. Staffhas been in contact with Rice Creek Watershed District personnel who stated that the applicant will need to apply ;for a watershed district pernut. There is a possibility that on-site storage of stormwater may be required by the watershed district, and has requested more detailed drainage calculations. This requirement has not yet been met. g. The parking requirements are as follows: For every three employees, a minimum of two spaces shall be provided; for every service sta11, a minimum of two spaces shall be required. Using the expected employment figures from 1996 and the proposed number of service stalls in 1998, the total number of spaces for employees and customers shall be 27 and 22, respectively. The site plan will need to be revised to show at least this many stalls for customers and employees. In addition, the site plan will need to be revised to show the locations of at least two handicapped-accessible stalls, of which one shall be van- accessible. After the revision is made to the site plan, this requirement is met. h• All outdoor illumination shall be fitted with lenses, reflectors or shades which will concentrate the light upon the premises so as to prevent glare or direct rays and shall be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of the City Code. Staff has received a photometric analysis of the proposed lighting on the site and has included it in the plans attached to this report. The analysis, however, does not give footcandle readings to the centerlines of the adjoining streets as is required by Section 1103.09 ofthe City Code. Staffhas requested that a revised analysis be provided by the applicant prior to the Planning Commission meeting on February 4, 1998. I. The maximum areas permitted for outdoor storage or motor vehicles cannot exceed two (2) square feet of outside storage to each one (1) square foot of enclosed ground floor area. Not more than one (1) automobiie shall be stored on each 40 square feet of outside storage. No rooftop parking shall be permitted. Since the proposed building area is 15,063 square feet, 753 vehicles could be displayed. The applicant is proposing to display a maximum of 121 vehicles, well within the requirement. Accessory buildings to be used solely for sales ofi'ices shall not be permitted. Such accessory buildings as are permitted shall be constructed of the same materials as the main structure. The only accessory structure proposed is the garbage dumpster enclosure. Since details are not shown for the enclosure, staffis not able to determine whether or not this requirement is met. _ � — : _ _ _ Planning Case No. S 12-98 2375- 2395 Highway 10 February 4, 1998 Page � k. All signage and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Section 1008.08 of the City Code regarding signs. The existing signage on the site includes the following: • existing pylon sign 10' x 10' on 26' high supports; area = 100 sq. ft. • e�sting wall sign 23" x 26.5 ; area = 50.8 sq. ft. � used car sign, ground mounted 8' 6-1/2" x 5' = 42.7 sq, ft. • miscellaneous small directional signs The total signage on the site is 193.5 square feet. All of the signage has approved permits, with the exception of two incidental directional signs on County Road I. The B-3 district allows for 100 square feet per business occupant, and one general pedestal sign not exceeding 340 square feet. Only one pedestal sign is allowed per property. The cunent signage is within the allowances in the Code. The applicant also has a variance for two 32.7 square-foot directional signs, although they have not yet been installed. The two incidental directional signs placed along County Road I appear to be located in the County right of way, with one being mounted upon a telephone pole. These two signs will need to be moved out of the right of way or removed in conjunction with the building expansion. A minimum ten percent of the property, excluding setback requirements, is required for landscaped greenspace. The area of the Saturn site is 142,703 square feet, 10 percent of which would be 14,703 square feet. The proposed landscaped area is 33,606 square feet, which represents 23.5 percent of the site--more than twice the requirement based on percentage. Almost of all this area, however, is in the required front, side and rear setbacks. Staff is unclear as to the intent of this requirement and whether or not the Saturn site is in compliance. m. A natural screen shall be erected and maintained along all property lines separating the site from any residential district. The screening shall include landscaping (trees, shrubs, grass, etc.) in compliance with Section 1103.08 of the Zoning Code. The applicant is showing such a natural screen on the landscape plan. The City Forester has reviewed the landscaping plans and the natural screen and finds it acceptable. This requirement is met. Other I�s��es• Access: The 1998 plans retain the same access points as shown on the approved 1996 plans. There will be two accesses from Highway 10 and two from County Road I. The applicant will need to obtain permits and/or written permission from MnDOT and Ramsey County if any work is to be done in either jurisdiction's right of way. The two Highway 10 entrances are separated by approximately 250 feet and the two County Road I entrances are spaced approximately 120 feet apart. Both agencies have been notified of Saturn's expansion plans. . _ � k �, .� .._;:, - :: : --� �=; _ , - < ' ' - --��`----_------ - - - ----_�' '% __ Planning Case No. S 12-98 2375- 2395 Highway 10 February 4, 1998 Page 6 Landscaping: The applicant is proposing an extensive landscaping screen along County Road I along with various plantings in front of �he proposed building expansion and in a parking island on the former Citgo site. In addition, plantings will be added behind the existing building. The planting screen along County Road I will consist primarily of six-foot Black Hills Spruce with Goldflame Spirea and a Hackberry tree. Other plantings on the site will consist of Amur Maple clumps, Red Splendor Crab, and more Goldflame Spirea. The City Forester has reviewed the plant species and finds them acceptable. The City has retained the services of the Hoisington Koegler group to study the Highway 10 corridor and offer suggestions as to implementing a common landscape or design theme along the comdor. While recommendations are not yet formulated, the City would request that Saturn allow for the installation or incorporation of design elements from the approved corridor theme into a portion of the 30-foot Highway 10 setbacic. Car Wash Stacking Space: The car wash proposed for this site is for customer cars only and not for the general public. Stafffeels that the issues concerning stacking and screening do not apply in this case, because the business owner has the ability to control the flow of cars, and the volume of cars is expected to be less than would be the case with a stand alone car wash business. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the following additional information from the applicant and referral agencies shall be provided prior to the next Planning Commission meeting before a recommendation to the City Council can be made: 1. More detailed information regarding the drainage for the site. 2. Revised photometric analysis showing footcandle readings to the centerlines of adjoining streets and luminaire specifications. 3. Documentation from Ramsey County indicating that the three lots have been combined. 4. Indication from Rice Creek Watershed District whether or not on-site ponding will be required. If so, the applicant shall revise the site plans to show how on-site ponding will be provided. Tn addition, sta.ff recommends that the applicant revise the site plans prior to the next Planning Commission meeting to include any changes requested by the Commission at its meeting on February 4, 1998 as well as the following: l. Add notation to plans that customer and employee parking will be clearly marked and kept free of inventory. Show the location of handicapped stalls. 2. Provide detail on plan as to how trash enclosure will be constructed. Show concrete pad. N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�512-98�.SATURN.pC 1 �- 7 L•' � ..� L..._. ��v��V�NIGVININI �J'4U�JI �„ B ONSON DRIVE ` � �' ,-� (A O N c0 p N V� N ! 5395 5394 539 a� m r� r. co �n ,n ,o- ,•� cv � o rn ao 5, N N N N N N N N N N N N ^ � 5394 5387 5386 538 � N N N N N N N N N N N N N N rJ` 5381 � 5380 5381 U 5: 5373 5372 5373 � 5: 5365 536g 5367 5; � B-3 5357 S3g8 5359 - 5366 J 5 5: 5351 5352 5353 �n rn'� '� o+ r�n rn ��n 5354 �n <r v r� N N— o o rn� 5, 53� S.� N N N N (y N N N N Q4 5,�,45 N N CV N N N N N N N N 5; �3S s'�s 5337 LAMBER AVE } y --- `�s - �_ �3 L4rUBERT �['1 �t rt cv �.i 5� �s � 5331 cN N N N N N N� I N N Z 5� � S`S`T� ,`� S`T26 5323 5324 PARK � g; s,��' G'� `��o s3i � PF s SJ�i �• S�a 'R 5299 53a9 5. s'29�, � s,� 8 5298 5301 53 2 0 5 ? ��O S�98 529 g 5295 �n n rn.- � �n rn M in o� ,- ^ v� rn r �n 5 O� � f� f� [D � d .t M N N O O� O) a0 � � W U 529 S2S% N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N S 8_ z �� Q N �'� N o 5275 >g s 3 ,e e-3 i :�� , 5292 5309 � �,. 5290 5299 ,EJ 528 5285 N 5270 5279 N 5260 5269 N 525 5255 "' S2 5245 � 523a 5239 N N W 5220 5229 � 522C 522 522 522 522 N� 5210 521 � 521� 521 5210 521 521 c�v ��nn s�n S�nn ��n S�nn s�na s�n szaa. R-4 528 N � � N 527 � � h`� 5249 5240 52 5239 523a 52 .9�.� ��ti i18 79 I6 49 13 ioi a 0 �si � /N Oi EDGEW000 � JR. HIGH SCHOOL ��nn Zoning Map Applicant: Location: �,'S'� yi 9h � �� :, :.:.�_. ^ 7� �O tiry oo�roc� mn�n��' N N N N N N N N N N PUD Planning Case 512-98 Satum Development Co. 2275 Highway 10 o�°` � � � 0 N N WOOOALE � N N 5205 `� � U Z � G� 5 '1,`�� 5 1� ti� �,� ti ti�,� ��\� ��=- Jan-07-98 02:17P uti�uiva 10:J7 lAA vii �vy y•sv� „��. __ _ � � �Gin�.l� r�rot.� � i� �,�.s,^� >�� c ��'t a �.��:.; � '�� ,.;��, -,� ,��.� �' 9►'� • ta�a�^'"� P.Ol G01VQ1�iUNTiY YIEVELOPM�N'T ti�PARTM�NT j� D�YEI.OPMENT APPI.IC'ATY(yN 2401 �Tghwiy l0, l�ounds Ytew MN 55 i 12 612-717--40Z0 612-784-3462 - F.AX Plew �jpe or Pvint Iafotma�o�► - Ccopleoe BWI� 5irn �f 'Ad� �ol'u� N�� t��' ��..►_'U IQ-1�% p��%D ��N� Tdcphoat 'i �J� � 35 � Po• Bd �C �D 8!� F�.. �90 -�1 �1l0 (iv�-f l7' �EAII'�-- LA �-, _MN ��ll D latac*�t Ir Pcop�K7 (uho��C appropi�cc boa) � Qwner af f'supen.y o Conunca for ihod Owner ❑ Lcssoe, Optrarnr. Maae�er ❑ Agir�nmc to Purcl�ase o Ottiei (cxpiain} AppYeaab dac prm�i�te e.�iJss�e ot �.ea� �►ta�a�*p �c the cime at a�p{ia►tiou, �nd if fov ue na+ tfie owner ot tbe P�Perty, you moet pnwWt a kt�nr d p,ttaf�No� frav� tia owed' �wQ aoae�nt tr t�e filia� of tbu applicrtioy. Thc pe�opp�t7 awwer awt ai� t!� applieatioa tor h to be �coepted. ��orD��o �� '2�'15 .�1 23r'1 � 1GN�t//ar Y lb �ga�be��ip�oa SEE f�T7�1'C � � D -- ��ati�,��uv,� b�- 30 -23- �!- aoo1,,.,2� 3 _ #ofA� 3. 2 g �c �r�L !.._ � z� P- 3< <� H�Lv � Y� v� ��v l 7ypc af Appiicatiao d Camprepmsivc Ptan Aat�x.�t 0 R�r.upi�tg o Ma�a 5nb�� p Mtnor Snb�vision D P2A�nod �l�uc D�valop�na�t (PUD) o pT.� ,�n,ca�m�t � Con�aonal Us� Pcr�ait -{�2 V 1S � ❑ V�san�,z o Coda Appcai bevelop Reviow/$ioa Plmi o wccl�nd Alceradaa Pmnit a Weel,nd S1�rr Permit o F7nodpSan P.nL�t � O@�ar SZ50 SZS�laa�e; mia 5150 maK S I S40 S25o + S250 deposit* SzDo Rd�as' t�a rez�niag f�s 5350 R-1, A-2 SyS; eli o�crs SZ50 R-1. R•Z 575; all o�l�era 5250 SIOtl s�zs��;��ixsmaxs7so �3>5 �.� a��es� �- �, x-z s� so: a� �s szoo R-1, R-2 525: alt o�ar$ SlUO SI00 'ih�►asits sha11 bt paid to onvcr atl costs a�publiG aolice�, rrutasals and sta�ar �adsvlt�t limZ spwt in tho r�v'tew. m�e�+ah or' prcp�an ctf ma�aials auoraaocd with dtis applicatiou. TI1d �pplieant s�tall bc rr.�po�lble fac 011 re�anabte �ac�r4dl oo�ca in �ccrs: dt'th,e imanl depo�ic ianaua�. A� ponion o� dnc depasii Iwe sQmt ur anc+uuberr.d shAll be refwedod m �hR �,Ucaot Rithin Qriny (30) dayx siGdr �aaun a�d�e �splics�iofl is camplevod. ltwe cMep�s the rtwc�se eide � thi� app6eatiM. Jan-07-gg 02:17R ,..,.... .... -- °- -- •-- . P.02 Gry of Mo� Vie�n, MN ikvdoUmeat A�p�ic�iioa Pa�e Z Presrsst U�e ofPro�ty o UcderreloQesilvacani � n„��r� F�r n,�� , � an�co�maci�l Es�bii�mca� ; a p�ber (e�lu� Property Cl�on � Ab�trt� � . U Singk Fa�ly a�ndling �ti-fimity 17wvllia8 I�ds�i�l E�eablis�nme Tarcas � � , �� ...- " '' � � i I � . � • /i _ � � -� . - BY aa�r (ouA} S�GN�rux� Otv �s �PLIc�'naS�i�EB� n� r. ro r� aESr or � xxow�c�. rt� L�o�norr �tto�om rxz� � Accv�C ~ s��,� o� np�u� N�e o[App�icam (ry�ud) D�M-btl tN . L � M D/kt-�t_. _�Gt�f�7�C(' Si� c�PTap�sty 4wixr Nmne o�(Pru�trt}' 0'weer (typcd/�xia� Aeer� �o►.� Piro�a Neaaba of Ow�pr �aP�-ttl ►QN !DF V E I.ol° rv1 E N'i f? O. B� )C 10813 GvE� t7� ,�3E74�2 L�4 � E. mN 5r✓ t l t� �l2) 750 - �s�f� _ r�b��p*.�ikp ��M��i�i��w�isssf ��y��a� �*M41fss��! t�+s�s��v�w�it�tssts�w�wr r�a.k �O� O7FICE Y1S� ONLY Ds�e oE submiml � - � � - 4 � D.0 da►caep��noc ' wsagn�a ao: Pt� csse No. _ r.�� - 9 S�` 6o-dsy limi� _ Izaday laioit Fea Paia: Application: �$ 37�"'�"' _ Prk Doc�caoan: �� c?�a: Tol�1• t+huRT �1T.1'ou Aacc�t�nt � C3ecic #1 R,ocppt �t 30o y o�, .3 c10 � S� S.3% ine -_ . _ ; , _ . . , . r __ _ � _::� �� .� _ .��_ �._:�� _ � .a..,c _.s� ; .. .. __ _�. _ x : �-=.—y . �-_. –_---��. ---- - - - --- - -�—�--- RESOLUTION NO. 5042 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW �� COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOILUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A I2EV]ELOPMENT REV�W FOR EXPAIVSION OF �'HE SATdTRN DEALERSHIP AT 2375 ANI� 2395 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNInTG CASE NO. 464-96. WHEREAS, Saturn Development has requested City approval to expand its dealership at 2375 Highway 10 to include the property at 2395 Highway 10, to expand building square footage and add a car wash, and to expand the types o£repair services available; and WHEREAS, the property subject to this application is described as follows: Subject to Roads the East 160 8/10 feet of part of the Southwest Qu�rter northeasterly of Highway an Section 8, Township 30, Range 23. Subject to Roads the West 134 feet of the East 294 $/10 feet of part of the Southwest Quarter northeasterly of H'ighway in Section 8, Township 30, Range 23. Subject to State Trunk Highway 10/62 over southwesterly 1 SD feet and subject to County Road H2 and Ex East 294 8/10 feet part of Southwest Quarter northeasterly of centerline of State Trunk Highway 10/62 in Section 8, Township 30, Range 23. WHEREAS, the property is in the B-3 Highway Business District, which requires approval of a conditional use permit for motor vehicle and recreation equipment sales and garages accessory thereto, and for car washes; and, WF-IEREAS, the purpose of conditional use permits is "to provide the City with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety; and, VV��REAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application dated 10-7-96 2. Zoning Map 3. Letter from Francis J. Coyle dated 10/7/96 4. City Council Resolution 4195 5. City Council Resolution 4611 6. Site Plan dated 11/1/96 _ _ . ____ r�: ---- --. _ _ � _�. — - - - - -- . _ . _ .. . � � Ciry Council Resolution No. 5042 December 9, 1996 Page 2 9. Landscape Plan dated 10/30/96 10. Floorplan & Building Elevations received 10/4/96 d WI�REAS, the Mounds View City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact regarding the requirements set forth in Sections 1114.04, Subd. II, 1114.04, Subd:��3, 1114.04, Subd. 2, and Section 1125.01 Subd. 3: A. DimenSional Requirements & Hours of Operation : Lot Area Lot Widdi Number of Lots Setbacks - Front - Side - Rear Landscaped Greenspace Parking Hours of Operation Minimum Required Pr i 87,120 sq.ft. and 142,703 sq.ft. 150 feet 764 feet Single or Contiguous yes 30 feet 76 feet 10 feet 184 feet (east side) 232 feet (west side) 20 feet 36 feet 10°/a or 10,445 sq.ft. 22 spaces (service) 27 spaces (employees) 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 33,606 sq.ft. 20 spaces (service) 35 spaces (employees) 126 spaces (inventory)Z 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Met? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no' yes yes Building and Site Design; Landscaping (Section 1114.04, Subd. 2.a., 3.b., 2.f., 3.c., 8.e., 3.f., 2.c., 3.i., 8.1., 8.m.) The proposal is an extension of the eausting Saturn dealership. The applicant is maintaining the same architectural character in the building expansion as is in the original, and will be landscaping the added site area so the effect will be one seamless development. All areas which are not in building or landscaping will be paved and the parking area will be bordered by a concrete curb. The site does not border property in a residential district and therefore screening and buffering is not required. A landscaped area at least 10 feet in width is shown along all of the property lines. The landscape plan shows a row of Black Hills Spruce along the north property line of the added site area which matches the existing site. The frontage along Highway 10 will be sodded as is the eacisting site. 1 With compliance with conditions, the proposal will meet the requirement for 22 spaces for customers. Z The Zoning Code does not have any specific requirement for parking spaces for inventory or display. : . � � � , , _ � -_ -----�-� µ .__; __ , : _ _ � — __ ' . - - - -��t_ �_�._ _ . _1 ." __'__'___"_ _�a I_-- '__ __'"' .� _�. ._ __' '- _i, _ .�.'_ __' City Council Resolution No. 5042 December 9, 1996 � Page 3 C. Lighting and Signage (Section 1114.04, Subd. 2.h., 3.g., 8.h., 2.d., 3.j. 2.j., 3.m., 8.k.) The applicant is proposing to install additional light standards on the expanded site area which are the same style as the existing light standards, and they will be located in a similar pattern. The original plans submitted for this development included a detail of the light fixtures which are shielded in compliance with the ordinance. The light standards will be in landscaped areas and not in the parking lot. Signage is proposed as follows: • existing pylon sign 10' x 10' on 26' high supports; area = 100 sq.ft. • existing wall sign 23" x 26.5 ; area = 50.8 sq.ft. • used car sign, ground mounted 8' 6-1/2" x 5' = 42.7 sq.ft. • two new ground mounted 8' 6-1/2" x�' = 85.4 sq.ft. • miscellaneous sma11 directional signs Total Signage = 278.9 sq. ft. Total Perrrutted = 100 sq. ft. of signage per tenant; 340 sq. ft. pylon sign = 440 sq.ft. Existing signage on the site complies with the City Sign Code. The applicant has applied for a variance in sign regulations to allow the two additional monument signs (Planning Case No. 468-96). D. Drainage (Section 1114.04 Subd. 2.g., 3.e., 8.f.) This conditional use pernut combines two existing, developed commercial sites. The reconstruction of the parking lot on the Citgo site and the building addition may cause more storm water to flow to County Road H2, and may exceed the capacity of the storm sewer in this road. A condition on this approval requires the applicant to comply with any requirements from the City Engineer on the direction of storm drainage to County Road H2 and Highway 10, prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. The applicant is also being required to obtain a permit from Rice Creek Watershed District. E. Outdoor Storage, Sales and Service (Section 1114.04 Subd. 3.k., 3.o., 3.p., 8.i.) No outdoor sales or servicing is conducted on this site, other than customers viewing cars in inventory in the parking lot. There are no abutting residential districts, and therefore, the screening requirements do not apply. Sufficient space for car inventory has been provided so it will not infringe on required customer, service and employee parking. F. Accessory Building (Section 1114.04 Subd. 8.j.) .. , w_ ; _, �..�'�--�_ � z. j..�__�__-_..w . .__...-- ' L"--- -- -- ' ." -- . _.._. _ .� � �._.._�,...,.. _.__.� .�.____._. .. ._ . ._�.. _ �% City Council Resolution No. 5042 December 9, 1996 Page 4 The accessory buildings are proposed. G. Noise (Section 1114.04 Subd. Z.k., 3.n., 8.p., 8.q.) The original approval including a condition regarding ta:�� use of outside loudspeakers, which has been added to the list of conditions on this recommendation of approval. H. Access/Test Drive Routes (Section 1114.04 Subd. 2.i. 3.1., 8.0.) The applicant is proposing two driveway entrances on Highway 10 and two on County Road H2, and removal of two of the driveway entrances on the Citgo property. The driveways to be removed are closest to the I-3ighway 10/County Road H2 intersection. This will improve traf�ic patterns in the area and remove a conflict point. The original approval including a condition regarding test drive routes, which has been added to the list of conditions on this recommendation of appcoval. Stacking Space (Car Wash) (Section 1114.04 Subd. 2.b., 2.e.) The car wash proposed for this site is for customer cars only and not for the general public. The business owner has the ability to control the flow of cars, and the volume of cars is expected to be less than would be the case with a stand alone car wash business open to the public. The site does not abut residential districts. The area behind the car wash faces a business, and will be screened by Black Hills Spruce. J. Fue! Pumps (Section 1114.04 Subd 3.h.) No fuel pumps are proposed at this facility; this criteria does not apply. K. Criteria for Approval of Conditional Use Permits (Section 1125.01 Subd. 3) (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to secve the area. The proposal represents an expansion of an existing business. The site is served by an existing arterial highway and a County road, such that traffic can access the site without going through the residential neighborhoods. The site is served by utilities. Because the proposal is for a business, no burden on parks or schools is anticipated. . �_ i : .. � = .� �-�� : -__- --y--=--- --=_� �- = --_ � � _ �-= -=- -= -- ' -; Ciry Council Resolution No. 5042 December 9, 1996 • Page 5 �� (2) The use will be suf�iciently compatible or sepazated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes wiIl not be depreciated in value a.Yad there will be not deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site will have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The site is bordered on the north and south by roadways, and abuts a business and industrial park on the east side. The e�sting site and proposed expansion shows a attractive combination of buffering and landscaping around the entire perimeter, and thi� business helps in creating an appealing gateway to Mounds View and to the residential neighborhoods north of Highway 10. It serves as an example of high quality development for potential developers of property in the area. (4) The use, in the opinion of the [Planning CommissionJ, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the e�sting land use. The expansion of the Saturn dealership to take in the Citgo properry will help unify this corner, and allow an attractive and successful business additional room. Providing more room for inventory and expanding the range of services available to Saturn's customers • may translate into more tax revenue to the City. Expansion of the Saturn dealership will also help in strengthening the vitality and enhancing the appearance of the Highway 10 corridor. This corridor is very important to the long run economic health of the City. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The purpose of the B-3 district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. It allows for auto repair businesses with approval of a conditional use pernut. The applicant's proposal fits within the limits envisioned by the ordinance for the B-3 district, and its location along Highway 10 is logical and appropriate. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the Ciry. The most recent discussion of comprehensive goals for the City was the Mounds View 2000 project in 1994. The Vision Statement from the Growth, Development and Business Issue Project Team stated: • "The City of Mounds View will be Irnown as a city with a balance between business and residential concerns. There will be a positive business climate as shown by public-private collaboration to recruit, encourage, and retain successful, community-based enterprises with emphasis on job e.cpansion, increase in tax base, and quality of life. There will be a ;_: _. - - � .� _ .__ .� - - _ —_-=- '----_- --=-� �--�--=-. -• _ City Council Resolution No. 5042 December 9, 1996 Page 6 cooperative spirit between the government and citizens, whether residential or business, when setting regulations into code. Environmental and aesthetic consciousness will be demonstrated by a redesigned Highway 10, a network of inter-connected trails, pazlc�, and wetland spaces, and active citizen participation in ecotogical activities." Two goals relative to Highway 10, and a goal on business climate, were adopted and are included in an attachment to this report. The expansion of the Saturn dealership furthers these goals, and is supported. (7) The use will not cause traffic h�.t �rds or congestion. The site has adequate access from an arterial highway. No added traflic congestion is expected. Eliminating one of the driveways on Highway 10 and County Road H2 will reducs tra�c hazards and conflict points. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The proposal will use a previously developed site which is served by existing utilities and roads. There is an existing drainage ditch along Highway 10. This recommendation c►f approval includes a condition that a favorable review be received from MnDOT and th� Rice Creek Watershed District. WF-IEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this amended conditional use pernut and development review (Resolution No. 483-96); and, WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution No. 5042 on November 25, 1996 approving this amended conditional use pernut and development review; and, Wf-�REAS, Saturn Development requested reconsideration of this approval due to objections to conditions #3 and #8; and, WHEREAS, the City Council reconsidered its action to approve Resolution No. 5042 on December 9, 1996 and re-adopted this resolution with modifications to conditions #3, #8, #14, and #15 as noted below; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council does hereby find that this amended conditional use pernut and development review, with compliance with the conditions stated in this resolution, meets the criteria set forth in Sections 1114.04, Subd. 2, 3, and 8, and Section 1125.01. " " " ". . . ... . .. _ _ .. . . . . . _ ." " _ . - _ _ __'_ _ I . .. . . . . City Council Resolution No. 5042 December 9, 1996 Page 7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that ihe Mounds View City Council does hereby approve this amended conditional use permit and development review as shown in the si�e plan dated 11/1/96, the landscape plans dated 10/30/96, and the floor plans and elevations dat�� 10/4/96, subject to the following conditions: 1. Outside signage shall be limited to that allowed by the Municipal Code, or as allowed in any variance approved by the City. Prior to installation of the two additional monument signs shown at the westernmost driveway on Highway 10 and the easternmost driveway on County Road H2, the property owner shall obtain approval for a variance for sign area allowed on the site, or for a code revisions which would allow this additional sign area. Signage is subject to a requirement that the applicant obtain sign pernuts before installation. 2. Prior to the issuance of any grading and building permits, the applicant shall: a. Provide a detail drawing of the lighting fixtures to be used on the expansion site, showing the style of luminare and dimensions of lighting standards. These lighting fixtures shall match the e�sting fi�ures at th� Saturn Dealership. b. Obtain a pernvt from the Rice Creek Watershed District, if required. c. Submit an existing and future drainage map showing drainage boundaries and storm water volumes to the City Engineer. The applicant shall make modifications to the parking lot design and building drains to comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer as to how storm water is directed to County Road H2 and Highway 10. d. Provide to the City an executed cross-access and parking easement across the three lots which constitute this site, which easement insures that the site will continue to function as one development. e. Enter into a development contract as required by Section 1006.06 Subd. 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. 3. Vehicle repair, servicing and maintenance are pernutted on this site, excluding body work and painting. All car repairs shall be conducted within the indoor service bays and not outside the service building, and the service bay doors shall be closed at 9:00 PM. 4. A vehicle wash bay is pernutted on this site. The use of this bay shall be for customers of the dealership only and not the general public. The stacking of _ , .... . _ , , _ == -------- = , � , ; : __ =-- _.� __---- -- ---�----�------- -�----•------- - - — - City Council Resolution No. 5042 December 9, 1996 Page 8 vehicles waiting for washing shall b� confined to this site and shall not interfere with vehicle circulation on the site. � Any cars taken on trade and not intended for resale shall not remain on the site for a period of time exceeding 72 hours. 6. No outside merchandizing of accessories shall be allowed. �. All transport truck deliveries and pick-up shall be �onducted on site during regular business hours (7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p,m.) Outside loudspeakers shall be utilized for paging purposes only. Use of the loudspeakers shall be minimized, and the paging system shall be turned off at 9:00 PM. 9. The hours of operation shall be from 7:00 ;�;.�». to 10:00 p.m. Site lighting shall be turned off, except for security lighting, by I E):30 p.m. �'he light timers shall be reset for daylight savings time and standard time each year. . 10. A good faith effort shall be made to ensure that test driving of vehicles from the site follow the route highlighted and described on the attached map dated 2/19/92. 11. This conditional use pernut shall become null and void if any one of the three lots comprising this site are sold separately, and approval new conditional use permit shall be required for the auto dealership to continue operation. 12. The applicant shall have this resolution recorded with the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and provide evidence of recordation to the Director of Community Development within 60 days of the date of approval, or this conditional use pernut shall be null and void. 13. Where the conditions contained in this resolution differ from those stated in Resolution 4195 and 4611, the conditions stated in this resolution shall prevail. 14. The dealership in operation on this property shall maintain a new car sales license at all times. 15. The gas tanks on the Citgo property must be removed prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for the dealership expansion but in no event later than six (6) months from the date of adoption of this resolution. j -- _ �; I_�� -:�;. �r- ^ �_� � - �=� �_ ��.:��__r� � I . __� _ W. :-�s �: i City Council Resolution No. �042 December 9, 1996 Page 9 Adopted this 25th day of November, 1996 Modified and Re-Adopted this 9th day of December, 1996 ATTEST: rome Linke, Mayor � � Charles S. Whiting, City Cle -Administrator c:lo�celwpwin\wpdocsldevcases146�1-96�reso� 042. cc2 i � � � 4 �.;=� o � �"��=2 2 _ •n �J'.4c�9.`a�31r�.InMOPi�i �✓V��J�.i�l s��JC109SJhni 8 c-i6�JF ? pQ - J -:�: �oo�,aaar°i N � � � °�b�i_ : � a p � � ♦ ' _ n n M �/� s n �/7 nnn � � � � � 3 °5 � -�° •. p� � z �: `O � /N-�4�� V � //VU2J�UU �QuV��VV N ' >�n��` o � � � � � I � a° �� a i�W dC� �� i� �� °�% `J��' C Q-� � � � � � � U`§$Y�� 8 � L� N� usi � ------- ---- --- - - -- _ – .. „�� s��,w �,.�,�b _..�� ....,....e �.,. �,�..�.. ....� L.a_�„ I � � E 5° �:t1 E� £LS � �� I°IIII�I�I!1111111111111111=1i��ll i �� „% � � % '�' � ��.,— .k� I ii-=��_� -- �� ,\�� ,,1�!<'. _.`<�' .�\•�<� "l�\.... i •'�I� LlL1ILl'� ii _ �,^,�"� ` � \' � ` � y ' �\ � \\ �\�� ' �T.� - • iJ� - '__ Q I �J� tl�� , . , � I �y_ � —_ / i/Q / // % /; ; n j � � -� __ � ��;��4� �� ; ;' � —��= � � � �?_- �„ � , Y � b J �� . \ . . .. �� /� �� ID� � - i I I ;.�,.� ,, � = "� i , � ��; —4 ` ' �� h° % :f I I ... i t �< _ � � \, ' ��y', a� —(�� '� � � r ' I � 5 �, .,�: ; � ° \ �� m �_ [��. — --' e \ 3 I � d '.y � �i � d' �C �j_'�'��',�. [ 5 � _ /� 'I 20 � , �., ,�,:'. � "�. ., -- �r , j " o: i � - - �� .< ., a.o � '----__ �°_— - "- �� i �� °F . I ` ' : �.' - °B -- � �� I • : ti ' °----�c---------=-----' --� �-- �..—. I..— ..9 9.. ��.Ia �, � � ;� I�� I I I 371Q .a�J� �ry.. . � 38@ ' \ . _ ,,. /' �� 3!�v° / r —if \ , s i/�� C� � \ 0 �� i�` � ;�-, � �� s� � I � I yr-�:. �--n i �� ,:�. �' -- i �" :� � ,s'� .� 9� �d .�� .. •�`; �' � ;� p � `0 � I I _� � z �I --f a w '" a F n .3'4 �� ,� ;7- ui N� ui W W w >-i � - s� n� � � f � ,� � F i .'`v� Af Q1y `�"Y� � i O m ui N � N Z � !�- \�° � 'g � �I 'Z' V Q p m �`t � _ n �r �• ♦ �� _ � , � � � � � � I / � � � ° �� St � � Q � w N Z R' V)� �.� � .� Ill � Q I Z v ll ! j� / w I i � . m' u � � �'1 � � � ? �- � Q � Z � �` � � �9 U � O � i'� 0� Z W d v m m � W L � � nl m w Q d s � F a � Z � F i ;� � � �} � a � � W �� Y O O d � � O 0-' � K Q � E � O � N i V 0. Q„ �) W L� V- 00 � � �:• � �';� ' ��y := \l a � � p 0 � � �/�'� � I�� i I i i I �� O , � : d 'ai � i � ; �.: ��, �.�_ _ _. � . :. � s� _ � _� r�Y ..._ � REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <� Meeting Datee February 4, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planrung Associate Planning Case No.: Request: Petitioner: Location: PIN Nos.: Zoning/I,and Use: Applicable Regulations: 507-97 A. Comprehensive Plan amendment from low- and high density residential to neighborhood commerciai B. Rezoning from R-1 (Single-family Residential) and R-3 (Medium density Residential) to B-2 (Limited Business) TOLD Development Company 2625 Highway 10 06-30-23-44-0029 thru 0032 inclusive, and 0051 R-1 and R-3; four single-family residences, one vacant lot. Comprehensive Plan: In 1976, the State Legislature enacted the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act which requires that all local units of government within the Metropolitan Area prepare a comprehensive plan. According to Section 401.09 of the Municipal Code, the City has adopted the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mounds View, dated 1979, as its plan for future development and growth within the City. Tt has been the City's practice to have the Planning Commission recommend and the City Council adopt comprehensive plan amendments. Rezoning: The Planning Commission shall evaluate the possible adverse effects of a rezoning request based upon (but not limited to) the following factors (Section 1125.01 Subd. l.e.): (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the sunounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. � _: i � , _ _ „ _ �_— >- -.�.= �` '�s'- �,--.-__:.� _ .�-- -. -� __ F_.,_._� ,:. _-= -� �--__-- _ _�:�---r-- -- ---- — ____:_.�� _ Planning Comrnission Report . TOLD Development Co. Case # 507-97 January 14, 1998 ' Page 2 Backgrounda The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, major subdivision and development review for properties located at 2625 Highway 10, and 7715 - 7761 Eastwood Road to allow for the constructiot� of a Walgreens Drug Sto:e. The property fronting Highway 10 is owned by the City of Mounds View while the four single-family properties on Eastwood Road are under separate ownership, TOLD Development Co. has purchase agreements in force for each of the properties. In addition, the applicant requests that the street bisecting these parcels (Eastwood Road) be vacated and replaced with a cul-de-sac. The area of proposed development covers approximately 3.88 acres, including the Eastwood Road right of way. The current zoning is split with the City-owned parcel zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential and the parcels on Eastwood Road zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential. The proposed zoning is B-2, Neighborhood Corrunercial, which would allow the above-described use or similar uses such as a financial institution, office building, floral shop, hardware store or off-sale liquor sales. As part of the review of this project, two neighborhood meetings were held on October 22, 1997, and on November 5, 1997. Comments from citizens were used to identify issues which needed to be addressed in this review. Most of those issues are covered in the rezoning section of this report. While this report addresses only the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning requests, the Planning Commission may discuss the other actions required for this development to proceed as well. Analysis: A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Back_round: The Comprehensive Plan divided the City into 12 planning districts, and included a map showing proposed land use for each district. The subject properties are located in District 6. A copy of this map and the text which accompanied the map is attached to this report. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the undeveloped, City-owned parcel should be developed as high density residential, which the plan indicates is 7 or more units per acre. At 1.58 acres, the vacant lot could support a multi-level apartment building although the likelihood of this is minimal due to site constraints and lack of access. The single-family residences on Eastwood are designated as low-density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. Issues: The question before the Planning Commission is whether the Comprehensive Plan, which is intended to guide future development of the City, should be amended to change the expectations for the subject properties to allow for a commercial use in a residential area. The applicant will point out that this location, at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road I, is one of the busiest intersections of the City in terms of traf-�ic counts, and as such, would be best served by a commercial land use designation. Of the greatest concern, however, is that the development as proposed would involve the removal of four single-family homes. Houses on the west side of Greenwood Drive would then back up to a commercial development insiead of more single-family : i . � s �_s �� J __--=- _ - -- : _� � �g � i�..� : . _ .� � �- ; Planning Commission Report TOLD Development Co. Case # �07-97 January 14, 1998 Page 3 homes, which is the case cunently. 1. Buf%r. The developer has indicated a strong willingness to work with area residents on making this site as non-intrusive and aesthetically appealing as is possible. It has been proposed that there would be a wide buffer of 75 to 80 feet between the parking area of the Walgreens and the residential properties fronting on Greenwood Drive. While this would be a significant buffer in terms of distance, it would be further enhanced by a number of screening alternatives, such as a residential style privacy fence, berming, or evergreen and deciduous trees planted to separate the commercial use from the residences behind it. 2. Suitability for Residential Development. There is some question whether it is appropriate to allow any additional residential development adjacent to Highway 10. A previous proposal for the vacant parcel called for rental townhomes, which was met with strong neighborhood opposition. The residential goals and policies from the Comprehensive Plan are attached to this report for reference. 3. Value �s Commercial Property. After purchasing the property, the City attempted to market its property for a commercial use, but found no interest, presumably due to the access difficulties and size of the parcel. The City-owned property, when combined with the four residential properties on Eastwood Road, would become a viable commercial site with its frontage along the Highway 10 and County Road I, given the premium placed on visibility by high volumes of traffic and the availability of access from arterial roadways. 4. Effect on City's Tag Base. The cunent taxes generated by the four single-family residential parcels is less than $6,000 annually. The City-owned parcel generates no tax revenue as it is public land. Using data provided by the developer, the taxes expected to be generated by the proposed Walgreens would be substantially higher--$66,000 annually. When looking at the overall picture, the City has a very limited amount of land in commercial zoning or commercial uses (3.9% in 1990), and an extensive amount of land in single family residential (45.1% in 1990). One possible goal of land use planning is to balance the types of land uses to create a sustainable economy and a reasonable level of taxes for services. Commercial uses pay more property taxes than do single family residential developments. Attached to this report are the goals and policies regarding commercial development within the City. 5. Compatibility of Uses; Protection of Residential Neighborhoodse The placement of dif�erent uses adjacent to one another may cause impacts and incompatibilities. Commercial uses are often seen as creating compatibility problems for adjacent residential neighborhoods. The applicant has made some changes to the initial design to address the concerns expressed by nearby residents about buffering and the impact of the proposed use on the single family homes east of the property. The Comprehensive Plan is one of the fundamental policy documents used by cities to envision their desired future. The Comprehensive Plan is a series of choices, and these choices have social, k . _. — --- - - -- _ - --=- --- --- ----- - =-_ - =- -�=_= - __ .�.._��.___ ' _�al lc__ . . ___ _ _ _ . . . . . ' . .:... I -. ' -...' -' �. _ "_______— __ __—_ ' _ . L. ' - ' �. .-. �stl Planning Commission Report TOLD Development Co. Case #`507-97 January 14, 1998 , Page 4 economic and environmental consequences. In the area of land use, the plan is often used to balance community desires and the marketplace. The marketplace, for the most part, initiates, finances and constructs development of homes, businesses, entertainment and leisure uses. Cities can shape the character of their communities if they translate the vision in the Comprehensive Plan into development regulations, which then molds what happens in the marketplace. The marketplace, however, keeps moving and continues to bring ideas to communities which may not have been anticipated by the plan or which differ from the plan. Plans need to be revisited and updated to keep pace as circumstances change or as opportunities arise. This request is coming from the marketplace and presents opportunities and consequences. The Planning Commission and City Council, after hearing testimony from citizens, the applicant and staff, must judge whether this new idea wo:ks for I�Iounds View. B. Rezoning Request Discussion of Reques : As stated above, the Planning Commission shall consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed rezoning. The criteria are as follows: 1. Relationship to the Camprehensive Plan. The proposal is inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation for this site. Minnesota Statutes require that a proposed rezoning be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. If the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is approved, the proposal would be consistent. 2. Surrounding Area The subject properties form an irregularly shaped parcel bounded Highway 10 to the west and County Road I to the south. There is an extensive, existing single family residential neighborhood to the east and an approved ten-unit townhome development to the northwest to compliment the e�sting apartment buildings. South of the site is a fast-food restaurant and Moundsview Square Shopping Center. Across the highway is a SuperAmerica and Burger King. In the proposed plans, the residential areas to the east and the north would be buffered from the development by a wide expanse of greenspace, berming and/or tree cover. At both of the neighborhood meetings, there was discussion about whether property values would decrease in the adjacent neighborhood as a result of this project. While there is no evidence to suggest that property values will decrease as a result of this project, neither is there evidence to suggest an increase in value. The impact may not be financial but quality of life or "feel". The developer has offered to deed additional land to those properties abutting the site on Greenwood Drive as a means to mitigate any perceived or real impact to property values or to establish a greenspace easement. 3. The demonstrated need for such use. The applicant's client--Walgreens--has done considerable research with regard to market conditions and long term feasibility for this particular site in Mounds View and feels there to be a strong need and economic viability for a store at this location. Residents in the adjacent neighborhood have expressed concerns over what will happen if Walgreens fails and the building is left vacant. Staff understands that TOLD Development - - _. _ _: �� r.� , _ � .— � - --- - - -- - - --= ----- - - --- - - -- � - : - -- - --__ Planning Commission Report TOLD Development Co. Case # 507-97 January 14, 1998 Page 5 Company will be the owner of the site, from whom Walgreens has entered into a twenty-year lease contract. However, in the event the use changes, covenants have been, or will be attached to the city-owned parcel prohibiting certain types of uses. 4. Drainag� Residents west of the subject property have expressed concerns that this development will increase existing problems with flooding in their backyards. Addressing this possibility, the developer pointed out that there should be less stormwater ntn-off onto adjoining properties after the development than there is now as a result of regrading the site to divert all run-off to on-site storage ponds. The City engineer will review the grading and drainage to ensure that this will be the case. Rice Creek Watershed I�istrict will also review the plans and will need to issue a permit. 5. Traf�c and Access Because of the site's location at the corner of the City's highest volume intersection, the trai�ic impacts of this use will be examined closely. The applicant is proposing a full access on County Road I and a right-in right-out onto Highway 10. In addition, Eastwood Road is proposed to be closed, which raised considerable concern at the neighborhood meetings from the residents living on Greenwood Drive. The developer has provided a traffic study prepared by Benshoof & Associates to investigate this and other traffic impacts of the development. Currently, access to Eastwood Road from Highway 10 or eastbound County Road I is restricted, diverting many vehicles onto Greenwood Drive. According to the analysis, the closing of Eastwood Road would redistribute 330 vehicles in a 24-hour period onto adjacent neighborhood streets. Greenwood Drive is shown to increase from 510 vehicles a day to 664 vehicles a day. With the traffic to be generated by the proposed Walgreens, there would be an additional 50 vehicle trips, raising the total daily volume to an expected 714 vehicle trips per day, which represents a 40 percent increase. Both MnDOT and Ramsey County traffic engineers will need to approve the proposed access points. 6. Public Safety. Mounds View Police Chief Tim Ramacher and his staffhave reviewed the proposed plan. Chief Ramacher has noted that any time vacant land is developed, there will be an increase in police activity because there will be more people activity and cars on the site. Accidents, theft, vandalism and disorderly conduct are examples of the type of incidents which may occur. Because of the buffers provided around the development, he would expect these problems to be confined to the site and he does not expect the surrounding area to be adversely affected. The Fire Marshal for the Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds View Fire Department has reviewed the plans and has responded that the proposed plan for this development does not present any areas of concern. The City will require a cul-de-sac radius of 50 feet, which the Fire Marshal finds acceptable for fire truck maneuverability. 7. Economic Benefits. As mentioned earlier in this report, the taxes currently generated by the subject properties amounts to less than $6,000 annually. With the development as proposed, tax revenue is expected to increase to $66,000. The number of jobs created by this development, jobs potentially filled by Mounds View residents, is expected to be about 35 positions, more than half of which would be full-time positions. The wages will be competitive for the marketplace. I--- � � _r.= :� . �- �_ ----�- _--" I-°- --- -------- .. i -,._. . .. . -• -.-- �. _._ .,- -�...r. _e.. _' ',_._____ - -� Planning Commission Report TOLD Development Co. Case # 507-97 January 14, 1998 Page 6 New commercial growth creates a host of short and long term economic impacts to the community and region as a whole. These impacts go beyond the direct tax benefits and job creation, and is referred to as the multiplier or ripple effect. When a business expands or a new business comes into the community, it creates additional jobs throughout the area's economy. The multiplier for a retail business such as Walgreens is 1.4. .(These numbers are estimates to be used only as guidelines in measuring the economic impact to a region from industry growth. They are developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce.) Conclusions: The foilowing represents staff's assessment of the advantages and disadvantages from this development proposal. Advantages: ■ The proposal is designed in a manner which provides protection and buffering for the surrounding residential neighborhoods ■ The proposal brings a national retailer into Mounds View ■ Walgreens will give Mounds View residents an added choice for their prescription needs and will promote competitive pricing ■ Walgreens is expected to draw a majority of its customers from within the City ■ It .will strengthen the City's tax base and generate revenue ■ The store will create up to 35 jobs, many of which will be filled by Mounds View residents ■ The use will alleviate drainage problems in the area ■ Takes advantage of an opportunity being presented by the marketplace ■ Eastwood Road residents south of Hillview Road would live on a cul-de-sac with no through traffic ■ The proposal redevelops a site for which the City paid $125,000 and returns it to the t� base Disadvant�ges: ■ The proposal involves the removal of four single-family houses ■ Traffic counts on Greenwood Drive are expected to increase by 40 percent ■ The development of the site may increase the number of accidents at this busy intersection ■ Homes on Greenwood that now back up to other homes would back up to a commercial business The community, in previous public meetings, has voiced opposition to the addition of any more rental housing within Mounds View. Many question the appropriateness of locating any type of housing along Highway 10--rental or otherwise. The City, after purchasing the corner property, attempted to market the site to commercial developers, but found little interest due to the access difficulties and relatively small area. Combining the City lot with the four single-family homes has opened the door to commercial development. Resident concern is understandable, however, �. - _ _ L - L �__ :. . -' __ � __-_ _'- . .�?_'� _ _ � - - -� ->�---•---------� E.�� Planning Commission Report TOLD Development Co. Case # 507-97 � January 14, 1998 . Page 7 �. because once the door is opened, where will the commercial encroachment end? The community, through the Planning Commission and City Council, must decide what its goals are for these properties and how the current proposal fits into the bigger picture. Recommendation: Continue to a future meeting the discussion for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715 - 7761 Eastwood Road and provide direction to staff and the developer if additional information is required. Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3, Traffic Analysis, dated 1/27/98 4. Applicant's Written Statement 5. Letter from Applicant, dated 1/15/9� 6. Letter from Margaret Hylton, 7731 ��eenwood Drive 7. Letter from Janet Wilcox, 7815 Eastvvood Road 8. Comprehensive Plan map, Planning District 6 9. Site Plan, 8'/2 x 11 reduced 10. Site Plan, full Size (Separate Attachment) 11. Preliminary Plat, full size (Separate Attachment) N:�DATA\GROUPS\CONIDEV�DEVCASES\507-97\507-97.PC 1 � ^�� rr .0�..�. S,: �' :>�':;�� j��i:. °;_'lC:i � d n �•n�j �A � �:� b�,rt _ v�.��n�'�y Appiicant Infarmation Name of Aoplicant .-�ddress � COI�L'�IU�iTTY DEVELOPNIE�iT DEP.-�RT�I�LENT � DEVELOP?YLE`i'T AppLIC:�TION 240I Highway 10, �founds �e� �.� 5� 11? 6IZ-784-305� 612-784-;462 - FAX P!ease Type or Priat Iaformation - Comp(ete Both Sides of Tbis Forni • � �- - •.u-� •��..� .� .'�•. . :�.. 11 ' • u11 . . � � - ' + . Q Te!ephone _(� � Q— 9 � n n Fax�! �Q-7574 Interest in ProQerty (checic appropriate box) ' � Owne; or'P:ooerry , C Con�act for De°d Owner ' - a Lessee, Operator, :vfanager a t'=greement co Purcnase `� Othe: (e:cpiain) S I'--operties involved, Purchase A reements are si�ned �aith �� owners , Offers ma e_ t.o_ .1- owners . �ipQlic�nu must provide evidence of interest in proQem, at the time of applicarion, and if you are Qot the owner of the proQerzy, yoa mast pt�ov�de a Ietter of permitsion from the owner �iving cauyeui to the filing of this application. Tiie pmperty owner m�t sign this applicsrion for it to be accepted. P:�operty Description/Proposa! Address or G�aeral Locatiou L�ai Desc.iptton Highway 10 and Ccunty Road Along Eastwood Road varies P;ooenyideauu"cauonm��v� 063023440029 ��h�n��4no�n 06'� 2�4[�nn�i 063023440032 �otAc�s 063023440051 CurreacZoniug Appro:�imately 3 R1 and R3 _ Preseac Use `�- - lindeveioaed/Vacanc : Sin¢ie : �m;jy Dwe?Iing � DuDie��Z'wo ramily DweilinQ � 1�fulti-Famiiy DweiIin�s - Q $usinessiCotnme�iai Estaolisameat � Indusffial Esraoiishmeac � Other (z:cnlain) i;/PC 02 c�DD11C�LtOII �t C�mnre�easive Plan eadment �Z00 s� R�oning �'oo '��CO max S i000 � 1�tajor Subdivisi �_ - �250 .,osit' � A�finar Ju6division sp - a Ptaunea Unic De��e:oomeac (PLTD) �3�0 � PL'D Amendmea[ � 1 �0 �' C�ndiriona! Use Pe:mic R-1, R-2 S7S; aiI othe:s �Z00 � V��c� R-1, R-2 �75; all othe:s �200 � Code Apoesl S75 � Deve:ov ReviewiSite Plan �100/ac; .mi.n �IQp mas 5500 � Wecland A1te: a�on Perm.it SSO � de�osit' c Wedand BuTl'er Pe:mit 7 � � Fiaod�(ain Pe:mi� 5200 � p�� Vacate a portio� of Eastwood Roa at the Intersection c�' CountJ Road I 'ser :�funicinal Code for e�Ianation or'de�osirs Please complese ttte reverse 9ide of thi� aQQiicarion� �---- -- �=--� i.�.-� _ � --- — - �i�� - - - - , -=- i4 . -�.::x: �._: � ._ . I ° � -- -- ---�- - -� � ��:� __ _ _ �,_ City of vlounds View, Nfi`i Development -�pplication Pa�, P;ope:ty Classincation ❑ Rbstrac: e Torreas DescripdonofProposal Please see attached letter BY �tY (OLR) SIGNATURE ON THIS AP� iC�IOWLEDGc, THE INFOR�fATION PRO Signature o[ Applicane Name oi �.policant (typed/printed) Sig�amre ot P:ooert;r Owner Name ocP.'ODeYCV OWIIC: ��t�ID1ZIlCC�� , I i�EHY DECI.ARE THAT, TO 'I� BEST OF VSX TRUE AND ACCyTR�.TE. �� -, Rob rt H. Cun ingham Please see attached 1et�ers � t� f�yi#�» � f� X#��»Ylr�f��]r�i�l� iifflr�iii� fflYilf!!� 1�[i�Y=�[a�»[f*lii�#i�'»!��]��{i]��**i1t1��*x�iY=iilfi FOR OF 'C� uSc OIv�Y Da�e ot"Submittal Date ot Acceptanc� '�'n� tO' pianning Case ��io. �:�� - Y� 50-.iav i,imit 130�ay limit Fees Paid: Accaunt T �onLicadon: ��O O °% -� Park Dedicaaon: D�osiu: Othee: Tucal: C:AFftC� WP`NL,l�WPDQCSWDtv�l�FOR.'�iS\DEVAP?.FOR C�ecic r �� r� 5 ��% �57i�� 1/9`� /966 y5 /955 7956 � 7949 7954 7959 '934 7933 7940 7945 7946 7950 �32 7930 7935 7930 � � � � � N N(V %9OO %9O1 7900 N C4 N%9OO HILLVIEW � � � �1�� N %88 � %89� N N %88� � 787 } 7885 �RF� —4 750 �2 )0 w �� -2 =0 i2 J� N � 6 Z Z 7870 � 7877 �� 7863 � xo °��8 7851 3 �, ,�o , ti �� 8x� �1 . `�; ��Vy I 7954 7950 7951 7927 � HILLVIEW 7917 7940 � �, ,� � 7901 PARK 7901 N N 7900 I P� �c L 7895 N N 7890 7885 N N 7864 7867 7870 7869 7858 7851 7860 7865 7852 w 7841 �850 �855 7846 Q'' .J 7840 7835 7840 7815 7790 �815 7800 � 7805 7780 '809 7770 3 7801 7760 '801 w 7751 7750 767 7760 � 7741 7740 761i � 7750 7731 7730 755 . 7730 7721 7720 745,'; 7710 7711 y? �",% N � � N � � ��aa County Road I ..__._,...�..��.w..�.a ^^�� \ ��i� 2553 N N N N � N N N N N ZSS� � N 2549 � ti; 2547 _ 2545 B-4 2s4� �L 2539 dy 253� ti�°� 'o Zoni.ng Map Pla.nning Case 507-97 Applicant: TOLD Development Company Location: 2625 Highway 10 1�� :. tr- BENSH40F & ASSOCIATES-, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS , 7301 OHMS LANE, SUITE 500 / EDINA, MN 55439 /(612) 832-9$58 / FAX (612) 832-9564 January 27, 1997 MEMORA.NDUIVI TO: Robert Cunrungha�, TOLD Development Co. FROM: James A. Bensholof & Michael H. Chen titi�� Refer to File: 97-89 ,��JL'� � � � � �' ti �`��'�3 r-�, n �, �'�v�-�--r�---� RE: Traffic Impact Analysis Results for Walgreens Store in Mounds View PURPOSE As requested by the TOLD Development Company, this memorandum presents the results of our detailed traffic review that was completed for the planned Walgreens store located in the City of Mounds View, Minnesota. The analysis year for this development traffic study has been set at 1999. The Walgreens store is expected to be completed in the Fall of 1998 and the analysis examines the impacts one year after completion, which is consistent with State environmental regulations. The analysis address tr�c implications of the Walgreens development during the p.m. peak hour, the time when volumes on the adjacent roadways are at their highest. Additionally, an analysis of the neighborhood impacts caused by the closing of Eastwood Drive at County Road I was also completed. In order to accomplish this year 1999 traf�ic analysis, we have accomplished the following work tasks: l. Collection of background data. Information was collected from the City of Mounds View, TOLD Development Company and actual field observations and surveys. Third parties such as the Police Department, the Fire Department and the School District were contacted regarding the closure of Eastwood Drive. Z. Development of Trat'fic Forecasts. Trai�c forecasts were developed to account for the new Walgreens store. Turn movement projections were devefoped for the p.m. peak hour at the proposed right turn access location along T.H. 10, at the intersection of T.H. 10 and County Road I, and at the proposed full access point on County Road I. Forecasts determining the impact of closing Eastwood Drive at County Road I on the neighborhood to the north were also developed. Daily traf�c projections were . � _ - e . . _ _ _ - . �: _ � _:. . - --_ _.. �_. _ :...f � =- ...- � $.�. _-_-__ _.�:�. ,.. - - - ----- -- - Mr. Robert Cunningham -2- January 27,� 1998 developed for Sunnyside Road, Greenwood Drive and Red Oak Drive that als'o accounted for the Walgreens development component. 3. Traffic Analysis. An analysis of the Walgreens development's impact on the adjacent neighborhood was performed which included A detailed analysis was completed to determine the traffic impacts during the p.m. peak hour along T.H. 10 and County Road I at the major access points into the development. The analysis also examined � how neighborhood traffic would reroute with the closing of Eastwood Drive. 4. �onclusions. Based on this analysis, a series of conclusions and recommendations have been developed. BACKGROUND INFORMATION This section examines the proposed development's location and some of its development characteristics. It is followed by an examination of the existing roadway conditions adjacent to the development site. Development Location and Description The proposed Walgreens site is located in the northeast corner of the T.H. 10 at County Road I intersection as shown in Figure l. The proposed development will require closure of Eastwood Drive just north of County Road I. The closed portion of Eastwood Drive at the north end of the property provides a cul-de-sac that will allow vehicles traveling southbound to turn around. The Walgreens development will have a floor area of 13,905 sq. ft. The development is proposed to have access both on County Road I and T.H. 10. The County Road I location will be full access, and T.H. 10 access will be restricted to right turns in and out. Vehicles will not have access to the site from the north on Eastwood Drive. Egisting Characteristics The primary roadways eYamined in this analysis are Eastwood Drive north of County Road I, County Road I and T.H. 10. Consideration is also given to other local streets, such as Greenwood Drive. Eastwood Drive is classified as a local street serving the needs of the adjacent neighborhood. The road is 30 feet wide (no sidewalks or curbs) and runs a distance of 1,300 feet between County Road I and Hillview Road. The intersection at County Road I is restricted to only right turn movements. County Road I is a four lane undivided collector road with a daily volume of 5,300 vehicles. A raised median presently e�cists on County Road I east of T.H. 10, which e�ends past the Eastwood Drive intersection to enforce the left turn restrictions at Eastwood Drive. The existing spacing on Counry Road I between T.H. 10 and Eastwood Drive is about 30 feet. Two difficulties caused by this short spacing are: 1) southbound traffic on Eastwood Drive ,_ . i: ... .. . . _ _ _ .. � .. . _ _ _ _ _ . . i. . . . . _ _ _ " -- __ .. � __ _ TOLD DEVEL�PMENT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FiGURE 1 FOR MOUNDS VIEW S1T� LOCATI�N �BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES, INC. WALGREE�S DEVELOPMENT TRANSPOflTATIONENGINEERSANOPUNNERS - . -= _... . -' -- . . . _ . , . .__ _ _ L. I ; - ._ . ._ _ . _. .. - : . .. . _ . _ - _ ; - . L - ' "__ _ - --- ' —_" _ '__�c_"_�. .. � �u�._�:_:.: .. .� � � __:� _�: i. - __– ' � -.�. � 1�1x. Robert Cunningham -4- January 27, 1998 sometimes abruptly maneuvers into the left turn lane on County Road I and partially blocks the other lane on County Road I and 2) queuing of westbound traffic on Couniy Road I frequently blocks Eastwood Drive. T.H. 10 is a four lane divided facility that carries 41,000 vehicles daily. It is classified as an A Minor Arterial road. At its intersection with County Road I, T.H. 10 provides left and right turn lanes in both directions. Additional Develonments To develop an accurate forecast of traffic conditions in the analysis year of 1999, it was necessary to determine if there would be other developments in the vicinity of the Walgreens site that would also increase traffic volumes by our 1999 analysis period. Once these additional developments were identified, the traffic volumes that they are expected to generate could be added to the base 1999 vehicle volumes. Discussions with the City of I�founds View staff revealed that only one additional development was approved in this area that would also impact roadway operations on T.H. 10, Silver Lake Drive and County Road I by the 1999 analysis year. The development is a multi-purpose office / commercial / residential design being constructed in the southwest portion of T.H. 10 at Silver Lake Drive. This development is expected to generate about 370 trips during the p.m. peak hour, with construction likely beginning in Spring 1998. The City of Mounds View staff indicated that no roadway improvements were e;cpected along either T.H. 10 or County Road I through our analysis year of 1999. TRAFFIC FORECASTS There are two distinct components in the development of traffic forecasts for the planned Walgreens development. The first component involves the rerouting of e:cisting trips due to the closure of Eastwood Drive at County Road I. The second component of the traffic forecast consists of trips to and from the Walgreens development. Reroutin� of ExistinQ Trips Due to Closure of Eastwood Drive The Walgreens development will require the closing of the south end of Eastwood Drive at the restricted access intersection with County Road I. This closure is expected to have an impact on the traffic patterns within the neighborhood to the north of County Road I since residents who presently use Eastwood Drive at County Road I would need to divert to other roads. The process to deternune the vehicle volume changes on neighborhood streets consisted of three initial activities; 1) conducting daily and p.m. peak hour traffic counts, 2) completing a peak period license plate survey on Eastwood Drive, and 3) distributing the trips through the neighborhood. �� . --- - _ _-� _- =----- -. � � � ____-�- ____--- ._ ! I�tr. Robert Cunningham -5- January 27, 1998 �' • Tra�c Counts Daily traffic counts (24 hour) were taken along Sunnyside Road, Eastwood Drive and Greenwood Drive. P.M. peak hour counts were also conducted at the intersection of Eastwood Drive at County Road I and at the intersection of T.H. 10 at County Road I. The results of the daily traffic counts are as follows: Table 1 Average Daily Traffic Location Avera e Daily Traffic Sunnyside Road just north of T.H. 10 192 vehicles Eastwood Drive just north of County Road I 330 vehicles Greenwood Drive just north of County Road I 510 vehicles The 330 vehicles counted at Eastwood Drive would be the key to the rerouting of traf�ic through the neighborhood. Where do these 330 vehicles go when Eastwood Drive is closed? This will be discussed shortly in the Trip Distribution section. • License Plate Survey A license plate survey was performed along Eastwood Drive between Hillview Road and County Road I during the afternoon peak period to determine the number of vehicles using Eastwood Drive to access other parts of the neighborhood and those vehicles actually destined to the block of Eastwood Drive between County Road I and Hillview Road. The results of the survey found that 43% of vehicles were actually destined to/from the homes along Eastwood Drive south of Hillview Road. The remaining 57% of the vehicles pass through on their way to/from other parts of the neighborhood. Most of these motorists are oriented to or from the north or west. • Trip Distribution A trip distribution process was performed to determine the eYpected rerouting of trips that would occur when Eastwood Drive would be closed at County Road I. The 330 vehicles counted on Eastwood Drive near the County Road I intersection will redistribute through the neighborhood using six primary access points. Figure 2 shows the expected rerouting of the existing 330 daily vehicle trips through the neighborhood. Table 2 summarizes the eYpected vehicle volume increases at the main access locations within the neighborhood. r=-= - _- ----� I. ti :_.. . �. �:;_r- -.--- - , --- --- _ �- <�: =� - -� i----- -- - - TOLD DEVEL�PMENT �j BENSNOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. �� THANSPORTATIONENGINEERSANDPLANNERS TRAFF(C ANALYSIS FOR MOUNDS VIEW WALGREENS DEVELOPMENT FiGi�RE 2 CHANGES IN DAILY NEIGHBORHOOD TRIPS WiTH EASTWOOD DR. CLOSED � b1r. Robert Cunningham -7- January 27, 1998 Table 2 E�pected Changes In Average Daily Traffic With Eastrvood Drive Closure Road Chan�e in Daily Traffic Sunnyside Road @ T.H. 10 +3 Greenwood Drive @ C.R. I +154 Long Lake Road @ C.R. I +g 1 Hillview Road @ T.H. 10 +12 Red Oak Drive @ T.H. 10 +80 Total Development Trafiic +330 The year 1999 traffic forecasts were developed for the p.m. peak hour. The traffic forecasts account for the planned Walgreens development and the multi-use development at Silver Lake Drive and T.H. 10 discussed earlier in the background inforcnation. The forecasts also include background growth at a rate of 2.5% per year that is consistent with the traffic �rowth on T.H. 10 from 1992 to 1997. The base 1999 trai�c volumes include the multi-use development at Silver Lake Drive and T.H. 10. The primary source for e�cisting vehicle volumes for the purposes of this analysis are 24 hour daily counts conducted by Benshoof & Associates sta#� along Eastwood Drive, Sunnyside Road and Greenwood Drive during December 1997. The staff also conducted the license plate survey and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts at the intersections of both Eastwood Drive and T.H. 10 on County Road I. • Trip Generation The trip generation rate used for the Walgreens development is based on established data published by the Institute of Transportation En�ineers (ITE). The average daily trip rate for this type of development is about 88 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. Based on a size of 13,905 sq. ft., the development will generate approximately 1,225 vehicle trips per day. The p.m. peak hour trip rate is 9.18 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. The total number of trips expected to be generated is 129 during the p.m. peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour, about 49% of the Walgreens trips would enter the site and 51% would exit. Approximately 45% of all the trips generated by the Walgreens store are considered to be "pass by" trips that involve motorists who are already driving on T.H. 10 and County Road I and would stop at this development. The percentage of "pass by" volumes is based on information published by the ITE. Table 3 shows the resultant p.m. peak hour trip generation projections. _ „ � . - - : -° - • - -- - 1 - - -- -- - . � . __� :_ K �. �_: _ _ ____ ---- -�1 '� ._-.�..._.::.: ,_�..:_._ � ---=-------- - ' i . � E 1 Mr. Robert Cunningham -8- January 27, 1998 � Table 3 Trips Generated By Walgreens Development In P.M. Peak Hour Trip Type Number of Trips Generated In Out New Trips 35 36 Pass B�Trips 28 30 Total Trips 63 66 • Trip Distribution and Assignment The new trips generated by the proposed Walgreens development were assigned to �he nearby roadways based on a distribution pattern of 20% north, 30% south, 25% east, and 25% west. These figures were determined by esamining the housing density in an area defined by a 1'/z mile radius surrounding the Walgreens development. The resulting p.m. peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. The top portion shows the road network with e;cisting 1997 volumes and projected 1999 volumes without the Walgreens development. The bottom portion shows the projected 1999 volumes with the Walgreens development. As mentioned earlier, the trips generated by the multi-use development at Silver Lake Drive and T.H. 10 are incorporated into the 1999 volumes without the Walgreens development. 0 . _ � _ - �. . . :. ; i;� ; / �j� \ �yc��,o� o�' � ! �� 1,py2o� Y 21 � � 3�� 7Z� �$e,�i��``�� t \ ��/ y jv aP��Pr \ v�oaNE� y ,�Ak � � \ j ��, � 00 � N TOLD DEVELOPMENT Q 0 � w � � a 0 w � W � � �S BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. � TRANSPOflTATIONENGINEERSANDPIANNERS e 0 � � � �O � w 0 � � a O 1997 - DCISTING r �- 1999 - NO DEYELOPMENT XX/XX 0 ¢ Q o Q � ;� o Z � y 0 � y � 51TE '''- 1999 WITH WALGAEENS DEVELOPMENT TRAF�IC ANALYSIS FOR MOUNDS VIEW WALGREENS DEVELOPMENT Hl11VIEW R0 �O � \ vi c0 � � E� '�--16/16 �E— 265/271 �, 427/456 —� counm r�oAO r HlLL ¢ � � J �� \ W A0. �> c�DCa 3 �� ,5 3a __,, F- z�, �J6 � counrrr Roao i ! C7 � � ��N� o �yy�,�� S � � 2q9 � � � � 1 � ��j F�GURE 3 P.M. PEAK NOUR TRAF�iC VOL.IJMES _ _ � � �._.�; r i �� ;�. -r _ . _ : _ L� � - — -- -- =-- ___-__-- .��; -- Ivir. Robert Cunningham -10- January 27, 1998 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The analysis results and needed improvements (if any) are presented next for the critical issu�s addressed in this study;: The issues examined are listed as follows: � Effects on neighborhood streets • Effects on emergency vehicle services • Effects on school bus services • Effects at key roadway locations • Main Access on County Road I - Operation of T.H. 10 at County Road I • Spacing of Walgreens Access on County Road I • Operation and Spacing of Right in / Right out access on T.H. 10 • Traffic operations within the site The Highway Capacity Software program was used to analyze some capacity aspects of the various intersections. Level of service A refers to an operational condition with little delay where as level of service F refers to a condition where long delays can be expected. Intersections and roadways are designed to provide a level of service D or better. A conceptual site plan for the development is presented in Figure 4. The figure approximates what the development will look like and how it will interact with the adjacent roadway system. Effects of the Development On Neighborhood Streets • Daily Volume Analysis As described in the previous section, the 330 daily trips that are redistributed through the neighborhood will increase the volumes along Greenwood Drive to 664 vehicles per day. On a daily basis, the Walgreens development will generate 135 trips from the neighborhood to the north. This additional Walgreens development traffic will increase the daily volume on Greenwood Drive by about 50 trips to 714. The Metropolitan Council has established a threshold volume of 1,000 vehicle trips per day for roads classified as local streets. The resulting volumes on Greenwood Dcive will still be well below this volume limit. Thus, the Walgreens development is not expected to cause any significant problems along Greenwood Drive. For Sunnyside Road, the increase that can be expected due to the closure of Eastwood Drive is three vehicles for a total of 195 vehicles per day. The increase expected as a result of the Walgreens development is 15 trips. The total volume increase on Sunnyside Road would therefore be 18 vehicles for a total of 210 daily vehicle trips. The remaining trips from both the closure of Eastwood Drive and the Walgreens development are distributed to other routes such as T.H. 10 and Long Lake Road. __ '- ` -- � � -_ — ` �= ._:. -_--- . -�_: _ . - >: � t� — I�- � : � � - - rr—�_. ... ----- - - ---- -- - -- - —��_w�f --"-__ .-- -........_ alJ! N sca�e D 100' . NOTE: THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC SHOULD HAVE A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WALGREENS AND SHOULD HAVE A STRONG VlSUAL BARRIER BETWEEN THE STREET AND WALGREENS PARKING LOT (E.G. LAPIDSCAPING OR FENCE). � � I � ! 11 �� j 11 �� a COUNTf ROAD I � f � TOLD DEVELOPMENT TRAFFiC ANALYSIS FiGURE 4 FOR MOUNDS VIEW CONCEPTUAL SITE �BENSHOOFRASSOCIATES, INC. WALGREENS DEVELOPMENT PLAN TRAHSPORTATIONENaINEER3AN�PUNNERB ��=- ---°-� - ---°--�� 4.-r._ _.. ..,._�,'- ---'-' t ----�--�----�.. L' ---�-�- -- "- '--- - - -�---- �'�� '--- �';.z .� Mr. Robert Cunningham -12- January 27, 1998 � �'.NI. Peak Hour Analysis Traffic volumes on nearby roadways typically are at their highest levels during the day from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. During this period, a total of 22 vehicles were observed along Eastwood Drive at County Road I. A total of 16 vehicles were northbound and the remaining six were southbound. Tt is expected that the closure of the Eastwood Drive at County Road I would divert most of the northbound traffic to Greenwood Drive. A smaller portion would divert to Long Lake Road. The southbound traffic is expected to divert to several roads in the neighborhood. From a total standpoint, the existing tr�c will increase on Greenwood Drive south of Hillview Road by approximately 12 vehicles in the p.m. peak hour. Long Lake Road will increase by six vehicles during this time period, and Red Oak Drive will increase by four vehicles. The Walgreens development is expected to generate 14 additional trips to and from the neighborhood to the north during the p.m. peak hour. These trips will be distributed between Red Oak Drive, Greenwood Drive, Sunnyside Road, and Long Lake Road. The resultant total expected volume increase on nearby residential streets during the p.m. peak hour are shown in Table 4. Table 4 Additional P.M. Peak Ho�r Traffic With Walgreens Development Location Diverted Trips Wal�reens Trips Total Trips Sunnyside Road 0 +2 +2 Greenwood Drive +12 +6 +i8 Long Lake Road +6 +4 +10 Red Oak Drive +4 +2 +6 The impact of this additional p.m. peak hour traf�ic on these streets will be minor. No adverse impacts are expected. Effects on Emeraencv Services Discussions with the Mounds View Police Department and the Fire Department were conducted. Sta:FF from the two departments have indicated that they do not have any objections to the proposed closure of �astwood Road because they do not expect the closure to have a significant effect on their response times. The City of l�iounds View requires that cul-de-sac designs provide for a 50 feet radius to accommodate the turning requirements of fire vehicles. . _____ _ _ . : , . _ � - - _-- • ---J --- --=- - - >-� <'-= -�--�- -�-� --�� - ��--=-- - = L,__ . _ , _�. t�_:�___. _ - ---- — - _ Mr. Robert Cunningham -13- January 27, 1998 Effects on School Bus Service The School District presently provides school bus service along Eastwood Drive north of County Road I. The School District has indicated that they would not have any objections to this proposed closure as long as the cul-de-sac at the south end of Eastwood Drive is designed to accommodate a school bus. This design will jive the School District the fle;cibility to operate a school bus on Eastwood Drive in the future, if they so desired. Eifects at Kev Roadwav Locations • NTain Access on County Road I This primary access point is located about 230 feet east of T.H. 10 and 420 west of the Greenwood Drive intersection. The separation from the driveway to the commercial center to the south is 300 feet. During the p.m. peak hour, this primary Walgreens access is expected to operate at LOS A for all movements, except the southbound left turn, which will be LOS C. These level of service results indicate that the access will function effectively for vehicles entering and exiting the site. • Operation of T.H. 10 at County Road I The Walgreens development is eYpected to increase the volume through this intersection by three vehicles per cycle during the p.m. peak hour. This low amount of additional traffic is not expected to have a significant impact on the operation of the intersection. The intersection presently functions at capacity with an overall LOS F, and uses a cycle time of about 157 seconds. This poor level of service is primarily due to the very high northbound volumes on T.H. 10 during this peak period. Discussions with Metropolitan Council staff regarding the eventual connection of State Highways 118 and 610 indicated that this connection would divert some of the traffic from T.H. 10, thus improving the operation of the T.H. 10 at County Road T intersection. According to Mn/DOT sta.f�, this improvement is eYpected to be completed by the fall of 1999, just one year after Wal�eens would open. In the period prior to the completion of the T.H. 11 S/610 connector, we eYamined possible ways to improve the operation of the T.H. 10 and County Road I intersection. The introduction of an additional westbound turn lane at County Road I was considered. The addition of either a westbound right turn lane or a left turn lane will not significantly improve the overall performance of the intersection. Since the T.H. 118/610 connector is e;cpected to occur in 1999 and likely will divert significant traffic away from T.H. 10, no further improvements are considered needed at the T.H. 10/County Road I intersection. Mr. Robert Cunningham -14- January 27, 1998 • Spacing of Walgreens access on County Road I The Walgreens access on C.R. I is located approximately 200 feet east of the T.H. 10 intersection. Accounting for the. Walgreens development in 1999, the average p.m. peak hour westbound queue per cycle at the T.H. 10 intersection will be four cars per lane. Si.te: observations indicated that a significant number of westbound vehicles are able to turrz right during the red signal. As a result, the queue in the left-through lane is typically twic� as long as the queue in the right-through lane. A maximum required queue length is generally twice the average queue. For this intersection location, the maximum queue length, including vehicles from the Walgreens development, is about eight vehicles per lane per cycle or a queue length of about 180 feet. There is an additional 20 feet before reaching the access of the Walgreens store, so the spacing between the two locations is adequate and will not create a vehicle stacking problem. The spacing between the Walgreens access on County Road I and the T.H. 10 intersectiar� is a significant improvement compared to the e�cisting Eastwood Drive access. Tl�� existing Eastwood Drive intersection is approximately 30 feet from the edge of T.H. 10, whereas the Walgreens access will be 200 feet. After completion of the Walgreens development, the T.H. 10 intersection will operate more effectively since vehicles on County Road I will no longer have to compete with the potential conflicts and delays created by vehicles using Eastwood Drive. • Operation and Spacing of Right in / Right out access on T.H. 10 The vehicle activity expected at this access is approximately 14 vehicles inbound and 14 vehicles outbound in the p.m. peak hour. The outbound traffic will not have any difficulty exiting the site on to T.H. 10 since the signal at the County Road I intersection creates ample gaps in the northbound traf�ic. The width of this access road should be 30 feet as recommended by the ITE to adequately serve the development's traf�ic needs. The spacing of this access from County Road I is approximately 242 feet (center line to center line). An examination of the access spacing along T.H. 10 for other developments and intersections found a varied range starting from a minimum of 190 feet for a daycare development located in the northwest corner of the Silver Lake Drive intersection. Typical spacing appears to be from 240 to 300 feet between access points. The access is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the operation of T.H. 10 because the spacing is consistent with other locations on T.H. 10 and because the volumes using this access are not high enough to cause congestion. Conversations with MnlDOT staff indicate that they will normally grant right turn only access on T.H. 10 for properties that are adjacent to the roadway. The proposed Walgreens right turn in/out access is consistent with the access guide(ines used by Mn/DOT for T.H. 10. Mn/DOT staff have indicated that they do not anticipate any problems in granting this right turn in and out only access for the Walgreens site. Based on ___ __ . . ._. :._ . .. _ .9 . r . . ... _ _ ._ . ..-,. _ � -�- �--- :. �t.€ . . � �' ` ar ,.... W : -+d - ' - - • , _�,- -' ° '�� ._.� � -�, _ _ . � ' ---- _ _ . . - '- - . ' Mr. Robert Cunningham -15- January 27, 1998 the eYpected vehicle activity at this access point, Mn/DOT staff have also indicated that a right turn deceleration lane on T.H. 10 is not required. Internal Circulation The Walgreens development will have a two lane drive-through pick up area on the east _ side of the building and a loading and receiving dock on the north side. The west and south sides of the building will have customer parking. Employee parking is on the north side. The site plan pemuts two way vehicle circulation throughout the site. The site will be designed to accommodate truck delivery services. As noted in Figure 4, the end of the cul-de-sac should have a pedestrian connection between the neighborhood and Walgreens. It should have a strong visual barrier between the street and the Walgreens parking lot. (e.g. landscaping or a fence) There is no vehicle access between the Walgreens site and Eastwood Drive to the north. CONCLUSIONS AND RECONIl�IEi�1DATIONS From the information presented in this report, we have developed the following conclusions and recommendations: The proposed closure of Eastwood Drive at County Road I and the Walgreens development are not expected to have a significant negative impact on traffic patterns within the neighborhood. Residents on Eastwood Drive will experience some inconvenience, but in return, they will gain further privacy because the only traffic in the future on Eastwood Drive south of Hillview Road will be to and from the adjacent homes. No street will e;�perience an excessive increase in traf�ic due to the proposed development. Traffic volumes on Greenwood Drive will increase to 714 vehicles per day and Sunnyside Road will increase to 210 vehicles per day. The volume on both of these streets will be well under the 1,000 vehic(es per day guideline established by the Metropolitan Council for local streets. • Staff from both the Police department and the Fire department have been consulted about the closing of Eastwood Drive at County Road I and have stated that this proposal wiIl not impact their response time to this neighborhood. The cul-de-sac should provide a radius of 50 feet to meet City requirements. � • A School District staff person has indicated that they would not have any objections to this proposed c(osure as long as the cul-de-sac at the south end of Eastwood Drive is designed to accommodate a school bus. The 50 feet radius as required by the Ciry of Mounds View is sufficient for schoo( bus turning requirements. • The removal of the limited access intersection of Eastwood Drive at County Road I will significantly improve safety on County Road I. The existing access is only 30 feet ._.� . - i� � - �_<, �} .:_'�" _ _ '. ��—>_-:e.:__ . . . "—_.� .—_..i _ '__z�. �_ � Mr. Robert Cunningham -16- January 27, 1998 (edge to edge) from the T.H. 10 intersection, while the proposed Walgreens development will provide an access onto County Road I at a point 200 feet from the intersection. This increase in spacing will significantly improve safety. • The right turn access on T.H. 10 will not pose a significant problem for northbound vehicles along T.H. 10. A Mn/DOT staff person has indicated that properties fronting onto T.H. 10 generally are allowed one right turn access point unless safety or other issues indicate differently. Mn/DOT staff do not anticipate any difficulties to arise with this access request. The access location is similar in terms of spacing characteristics to other right turn accesses along T.H. 10. The access should have a width of 30 feet to meet established design guidelines. • The spacing between the Walgreens County Road I access and the existing T.H. 10 intersection will be sufficient to accommodate the overall traffic needs. The development will add 36 vehicles to the westbound tra.�c during the p.m. peak hour, which is about one vehicle every 1'/2 minutes. Accounting for this increase, the queuing (i.e. stacking) of westbound traffic on County Road I approaching T.H. 10 is expected to be adequate(y accommodated in the space between T.H. 10 and the Walgreens access. It is expected that westbound tr�c will hardly ever "back up" to the Walgreens driveway. • The Walgreens access on County Road I will operate at an acceptable level of service for all movements into and out of the site. The southbound left turns will function at a LOS C, which is acceptable for this type of movement. A11 other movements will function at a LOS A. The development will not have a significant impact on the operation oi the T.H. 10 at County Road I intersection. The development contributes approximately tluee cars per cycle during the p.m. peak hour. Total volumes approaching the intersection during the p.m. peak hour would increase by just 1'/z percent. The Walgreens development would cause no change in the level of service provided by the intersection. • The completion of the T.H. 118/610 connector by the year 1999 will improve the operation of the T.H. 10/County Road I intersection by reducing volumes on T.H. 10. ::� ,. _ _� � � , -"�='_- - � -- ; - ,r.--�.� � . L=��s _ � �•--- _:�;«- -- �- ;� - ,.=° �-�--- - . L�— ---_--- - -_,._. , c�_ �_ t_3.� ._� � WRITTEN STATEMENT .Describtion of PYOtios�l Over the past several months, TOLD Development Company has assembled purchase agreements for four contiguous single-family residential parcels along Eastwood Drive and the City owned multi-family zoned, and currently vacant, parcei located at the intersection of Eastwood Drive, County Road I, and Highway 10. The multi-family zoned parcel and the single-family residential parcels are physically separated by Eastwood Drive. The total site area of the four single-family parcels is appro:cimately 82,352 square feet. The City owned parcei totals approYimately 29,100 square feet. We are requesting vacation of a portion of Eastwood Drive. The area of the street that bisects the parcels is approximately 17,940 square feet. The total site area is therefore, approximately 129,�00 squaxe feet. We have not yet conducted a survey on the entire parcel, so this area is subject to adjustment. We aze proposing a building of approximately 14,000 square feet for a single-tenant neighborhood retail-oriented use. The total contemplated parking need for the project is 100 parking stalls. This development contemplates a total building footprint of less than 11 % of the total site area. We, therefore, request that the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mounds View be amended on these five parcels from the present single-family and multi-family desi�ation to a B2 desi,nation. We concurrently request that the zoning on these five parcels also be redesignated to a B2 zonina. Changes in Communitv Goals We believe that this request is consistent with the community goals of creating a retail and service ring road orienting tr�c away from the primary traffic arterial of Highway 10. We believe that, in the wake of a recent development proposal, that was withdrawn on the City owned parcel for a multi-family development, t�'�at faced substantial nei�hborhood opposition, a low-density nei�hborhood oriented retail development would be more in line with the joals of the community. We have atteznpted to dezn.onstrate in several public fonuns, that the proposed site plan allows for T _ - � .�- �:<_r----� � =-- ___._- ..� ._.:..__ �; : _ _ . �- - --_� . .. a substantial buffering of the retail use to the adjacent homeowners. The buffer width contemplated is over two times that required by code (if the parce( were presently zoned B2). � �� f' County Road I and Highway 10 experiences the heaviest level of tr�c at any intersection in the City of Mounds View: It could and should be questioned whether it is appropriate to have land zoned multi-family residential at this location, and whether residential streets should be intersecting - this corner approximately 20 feet west of the intersection. Thzough this application, �ve respectfully request the Planning Commission and the City Council to contemplate the following question: "If IVlounds View were a brand new community today, what would be the appropriate Comprehensive Plan desi�ation and the appropriate zoning for a parcel at this location?" We feel that the answer to this question, given the proximity to the residentiai area, would be a B2 zoning. The City owned parcel at the comer of County Road I, Highway 10 and Eastwood Drive does not have the access necessary to create a viable retail or other commercial development. Only when it is coupled with the four residential parcels to the east, and across Eastwood Drive, can you create a site of significant enough size to create a safe environment for tuming, and a size lar�e enough for a right turn-in from Highway 10 designed to accommodate speeds of as high as 30 miles per hour. Therefore, we feel that this change in the Cumprehensive Plan and the rezone, in order to be effective, must encompass all five pazcels that we have assembled. Changes in Market Conditzons Assembling single-family residential homes and othez parcels is noi an ineYpensive proposition. It is only through the emer,Qing market conditions for retail development can we afford to pay the price for this assembly. It is only based upon the sales projections which generate the rent that can be paid -�- � � -- __ _ _- _ :. ,-,- =- - ,, . . . �: � � -- ' - '--- - = •• `� _� � - .:_ �' - —=- — --- - �-- - '= - — �a==---- _,= - �--- —�__._. by our tenant that can accommodate a density such as we propose. Coordinatzon with Other Pl'an �'lements Our proposal contemplates creation of a cul-de-sac entirely with our project and approximately 275 feet north of County Road I%r Eastwood Road. We propose to construct the cul-de-sac in such a fashion that emergency vehicle (only) access from Hi�hway 10 to Eastwood Road through the cul- de-sac would be maintained. Pedestrian access to the development from the Eastwood Road neighborhood would also be maintained. Additionally, we would agee, as part of the chan�e in the Comprehensive Plan, to continue a sidewailc, at our expense, from Greenwood Road to the site. This would allow for pedestrian access in this location where presently none exists. Effect,s on A,butting P�obertv Owners This proposal admittedly affects the adjacent property owners. The adjacent property owners include a contemplated multi-family residentiai project to the north, and five single-family residential parcels to the north and east. As mentioned earlier in this written statement, the low level of density contemplated by this development allows for a substantiai buffer between the abutting properties and the proposed development. We have generated site plans that show this buffer to be anywhere from 50-80 feet from the edge of the pavement to the property line. Additionally, our proposal contemplates utilizing such buffering materials as residential style cedar fencing adjacent to the single-family homes, benms, and a mixture of deciduous and coniferous plantings. We will also keep as many of the eYisting nature planting, as possible in the buffer areas. We have met with each of the adjacent single-family residenrial property owners. Overwhelmingly, their concerns are the impacts of traffic, drainage and value. We believe we can. miniznize the impact of traffic �enerated noise, headlight sweeps and so-on by the buffer matezials mentioned above. Additionally, we can arrange to have truck deliveries occur during normal business hours only. Typically our client has only one semi-truck type delivery per week. The balance are local delivery trucks. -�- : . _- _ - —.._, � - - - __ � - . ...- . - . : . . _ _ __ _ . , .: . : . : _ _... � < ___�._ .- - - -----=-� - -=.. -- _� � : --- � -=' - - -� ------_----- — - --- _ We have discussed with the abutting property owners the possibility of including the drainage of their properties as part of our storm water detention system that wiIl be constructed and maintained on-site. Presently, each one of the homes, to a differing degree, experiences water build-up in their yards and/or basements during periods of heavy rain. Therefore, through the construction and development of this project, we can bring a positive benefit to the immediately abutting neighbors. FinalIy, to address concerns of value, we have discussed with the neighbors whether they would wish to have a portion of the buffer deeded to them to enlar�e their properties. Presently, there is a mixed feeling among the neighbors as to whether that is desirable. Of course, they do not wish to have their property values increase through the additional property resulting i.n additional property taxes payable. Therefore, perhaps the most appropriate course is to have us retain ownership and create an easement of some sort. Characte�- of Sun-ounding AYea We do not feel that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would si�ificantly alter the character of the surrounding area. Three of the four corners at the intersection of County Road I and Highway 10 are presently developed as retail uses. These uses vary in intensity from neighborhood centers and strip malls, to fast food developments and stand alone retail buildings. None of tk�e existi.ng improvements feature the level of green space and buffering contemplated by our proposed development. Immediately surrounding this proposed development, is a single-family residential neighborhood of generally well kept and owner occupied homes. To the north are the Red Oak Apartments and the planned additional multi-fannily development to the north. I�efnonsty°ated Need for ChanPe an Desa�°Qnat�on The neighbors were seemingly overwhelming in their opposition to tiie recently contemplated development multi-family housing on the City owned parcel located at County Road I, Highway 10 and Eastwood Drive. A number of issues were discussed in public forum, including the safety of the -�- residents, especially children, given the proximity to Hijhway 10. Additionally, the City, several months ago, attempted to market the City owned parcel to a broad variety of uses. Given the site configuration, the development of the parcel as anything but multi-family residential was not possible at that time. Through the inclusion of the four single-family residential lots, we have created a parcel that is developable as something other than multi-family residential. We feel we are bringing forth a very reasonable densiry in use, in the form of a B2 zoning, for the area. We respectfully request the Planning Commission and City Council to contemplate the following question: "Is it not reasonable for the fourth corner of this intersection to be guided as commercial?" Tax�ba_ _ ct�o, f Proiect The development of the parcel as contemplated will provide a windfall of tax revenue to the City of Nlounds View. Presently the City owned parcel generates no taxes. The four single-family zesidential parcels collectively generate less than appro.ximately $6,000 tax revenue per annum. Assuming a project value of $2.2 million dollars, including land, and a very conservative �% tax figure, the property taxes will jump to $66,000 per annum. We have requested no public participation in this project. Convezsely, we have agreed to pay over two times that which was contemplated by the multi-family developer for the City owned parceI. Our purchase price ailows the City of Mounds View to recoup its entire purchase price on the site. E�'fect on Natzcral Features and Otien S�ace The proposed project will indeed affect the amount of impervious surface relative to that which e:�ists today. However, ;iven the overall buffer area, and our plan to maintain mature landscaping located within the buffer, and the requirement to maintain storm water detention on-site, we feel that the overall impact to the area will be negligible. -5- �-�- i k - � - _ �_ � _ -_.:.� : _� ��2 ` _.: _ '-.,..-�' � . r�s:,.'>_"' . . - ., ,- 3 7. . � . . . ' _' ` —. " '— ` ,—�. — .__ _.., � I � ,- � To o a h and Soil Cvndrtions �• We do not plan on significantly modifying the topography. We assume that soil conditions will be acceptable for the construction of the commercial building. • Densz Issues of density have been addressed elsewhere in this statement, however, the impzovements cover less than 11 % of the site area. Typically, retail developments can have 20-25% site coverage. Im�act on TYaff ic CaYCUlation We have ordered a traffic study for the proposed development. We sha11 forward it to the City as soon as it is available. Imnact on Draznage We have not yet employed the services of a civil engineer, however, with the level of density achieved on trus site, we feel that drainage, storm water detention issues, and ielated issues, should not be an issue. Additionally, we feel that we could accommodate the storm water of the adjacent residential parcels on our site. Avaalabilztv of Utilities/Under� oundin� We have not yet eYplored the availability of utilities, but given the location of County Road I and Highway 10 and the adjacent developments, we feel confident that utilities will be available, adequately sized. All utilities on the site shall be under�ound. Ph� This project will not be phased, it will aIl be developed simuitaneously. � __ __ � --- - ' _ -- ,_ = - � =--.� _ — � ': _._.ii _ FY . _ - - - -- --- -- - - --- � � TOLD T DEVELOPMENT COMPANY January 15, 1998 Jim Ericsan Planning Associate City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 5�112 Re: Development Proposal Highway 10 and County Road I Nlounds View, Minnesota Dear Jim: We recently discussed the requirement of presentation of a market study for the above referenced development proposal. The proposed development is a build-to-suit for lease for a specific client. This is not a speculative development. Rather, we will be entering into a long term lease, as landlord, with Walgreen Co., as tenant. This site was thoroughly examined by the Walgreen Co. personnel, and a presentation was made to the Real Estate Board in late November 1997. The Real Estate Board, considering the lease proposal by TOLD Development Company and the results of the market study performed by the Walgreen Co. personnel, approved the site. We are not, however, privy to receipt of their internal documentation. I do believe that approval by a retailer wiiling to enter into a long term lease on a build-to-suit facility should, przma facie, evidence completion of an acceptable market study. Jim, if I car, prov;de �e�a with an;� additior.al informatien cr if this ler*.er does not serve the intended purpose of satisfying the market study requirement, p(ease do not hesitate to call on me. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very ly Yours� VV Robert tiI. Cunningha Vice President - Development n:\bob\ericson.115 MINfVEr1POLIS • MILWAUKEE • CHICAGO WEDGWOOD COMMERCE CEI`ITRE a 6900 Wedgwood Road, Suite 100. �Haple Grove. MIV 55311 •(612) 420-900C Fax (612) 420•7574 — _ _. � __ : _ _ - - ---= �— - — - - --. .. _ � = --- ��-- - - -- - - November 6, 1997 - , TO: �,� Q�CV�'1 � ��'�`�'�'��v`�, �c ` ""` FROM: Margaret Hylton 7731 Greenwood D�ve phone:786-2782 ��'�''1Gv1�,o�i��,'-�' SUBJECT: Proposed Walgreens Development Eastwood Road and Highway 10 I live at 7731 Greenwood Drive, I am very much opposed to this development. This property is zoned residential and I am opposed to it being rezoned commercial. I had thought that town homes were going to be built on this site? I would not oppose any housing being built on this site. My concerns regarding a commercial site are: My property will be devalued 15-20%. This is a fact I have talked with three different relators about market values and what tlus type of construction would to do to the market value and the marketability of my home. Am I going to be compensated for my loss? 2. Putting in a building and a parlcing lot will overload the storm sewer capacity of this neighborhood and will lead to more sireet flooding and flooding in my basement. Our street already floods to a depth of one to two feet every time we get over a half inch of rain. The street floods at least eight to ten feet into my front yard. Is the city going to upgrade the storm sewer? Is Walgxeens going to pay for it. I don't feel T should be assessed for the problems this will create. It is simple Earth Science, if you don't think the flooding will happen you are mistalcen. 3. With access from Eastwood blocked off to highway 10, people coming out of this development will go around the block and up Greenwood to I to exit at the stop light on 10. I do not want the increased traffic on my street! This neighborhood is full of grade school children riding their bikes or walking down to Hillview park. There are idiots speeding down our street already and coming off of I at 45 miles an hour. We do not need tocreate this dangerous situation. This is a family neighborhood with young children and i feel that this development will destroy the qualit� of family life we now have in this neighborhood. 4. The City Council keeps taking about ta�c base. Don't homeowners pay taxes. Our taxes I have lived here since 1985, the City has added quite a few businesses since that time. Have my taxes gone down be cause of the new business? No, my taxes have only doubled since we moved here in 1985. 5. Why, why, why, it that the City Council is pays no attention and has no consideration for the people who are left there after you tear out houses and put in a development? cc: Mayor McCarty _ __ _ _ _ - �--_- =- �: .------- -- ------u' - -- --=- �_� - -- - � - -_._ _. �-- -- --------- � - � �Vov. 3 , 1997 _ i`•2r. Ericson, I am unak,le to attend �he Taednesday nig!�t meeting, so I am �rriting to state my opinions and concerns regarc?ing the �evelorxnent of tlie property on tle east side of rastwood Rd. and t�le corner property in the west sioe of rast�aoocl at f-'iahway 10. I do not aqree with t'�e concet?t of re�lacina residential property wit.h commercial property. The city of Nbunds View is struggling in many ways at pr�sent to m�intain anc�. develop a true sense of ca�rnLnity within a variety of livincr situations, an effort that s'�ould be encouraged. As a sense of community grows, peonl� get to know eachot:er, they car� about eac'�ot.'�er, tizey care about t�ze community; w:�icn helps witii care of property and can create an environment that deters crime in a r�ositive way. Taking over resi�ential proper-ty for conunercial develo�r�ent infringes on tze commtiznity, c�isplaces neiqhbors, and is damaging to neig_hborhoods. People do not came to P�7ounds View to live next door to a large asphalt parl:i.�g lot--tlzey come to Nipunds View to purchase a tiiom� with a yard for kids tc play in and for them to en�oy. Adding cor.-�nercial develoFxne-�t to a n�ighborhoocl adc?s additional bright liqhting at niaht tL'�at ran shine into windows, it adds noise, it adds traffic; and it takes away livi.�g space. It also takes away or,en areas tha� can help to keep s�rater fram pondina by covering �zem wit� asphalt (the land at the south end of Fastwood and Greenwooc7.�aas all swamp with open water at one time-•fill does not elimuzate l.lzat as�ect, it oril.y minimizes it same) . I also :Zave a great concern for encouraging the building of competition (with�n 2 hlocks) for tne one store in Mounds View Sc�uare that has rc�..mained in t�e ma11 and provides a real service to the co�anunity. If this city is co�i.tted to encouraqi.nq businesses, tzen it should certainly do all t�t it can to su�port businesses t'.�at are well established, rather than creating a notential pro�lesn for +-hose bus�nesses. There are already ? places within 3 blocks of eachotzer tliat will fill prescr�ions for people, and there is a T^Jalcqreens within 3 miles of this site-I do not see the need for another clrug store, and it is more clifficult to understand why this particular business at t'�is site wol�ld justify buying and te�ina down 4 single family homes. If business is the current "top priority" for the city, then get to worlc and support the businesses tliat are already .zere, find tenants for uze empty business spaces that we already have, and t��en maybe look toward new constructione Please consic�er carefully before you begin to take over an established neig'.-ibor- hood �aitz commercial develo�nent-i� could cause a rea]. loss to the entire cor�rninity, and r�covery of ca�nunity may came slowly. Priorities need to l�e studied �nd established for th� c�ood of tr.e total community, not for just a few. Please remember tris as decisions are made, Respectfully st�kxnitted, � W �� J et Tai7cox 781� Eastwoocl Rd. Nbunds View, NLrI �5112 jo � � � � u �'-�;:-_�-!_;:�—.__. ' ' :, �IOV il � 1597 'i �gy ,��.t�-�Yt- _ � � z � AR�AN A SPRING`� LAKE E` PARK ��. � �... .. . .. ... • .I.�. OAKW000 � I Roao "�" on all 0 J district 6 �� F � �-'.- - p ' � � ROAC a a 0 � Y � Q O W 0 0 > 4 0 3 � w w r- a • � o �n 41 a } W r I Z 2 � j `^ HiILVIEw aoao 7 � 10 �� o �, H � , � .� D , � - - � =. \�� h � . COUN1 proposed land use LD Low density residential M D Medium density residentiaf M D/T Medium density - trailer park H D High density residentiai NC Neighborhoad commercial HC Highway commercial IND Industrial S School � C Cf�urch P Park/pub I i c fac i I i ty � 83 2� natural features* �Flood plain/metro area designated wetlands �1��1� Steep slooes � Tree mQSSing *Approximate locations - subject to detailed review at time of proposed development ,�._ ; � .- � _ : w _ _ _ _ -: _.� -� - ----------- - - - - =- --- �---- = — �. : , : . . �..� __� _ �. - -- --- � W�j � � A � o I �r�° � 1T�-� �� O �d �� $B�: � c, U F,;��; � O � w _ }�"�,� � �z C �� k!� ..' � � �Y�..Sy. �� "t��, c = Ke � 4r M1 e� .. � � N o� _ � F ��-�� o. � �� z � ° �, o�� a � F-- i �i �� in O ��m N c'7 i Qj � Q J� � � O_I �c�N �I N�� U � U � o i� � �s ,� � � � � �"' � O p O ; _ ' � � I n � � I J � � � i � ~ � I Z O � � i O � � � �€ ^ � a � �� O I � --'---- - - --- �-� U �� .� �,.� e � _ f ; �^� � ---- �--- 4 � ��r � G� �� / � � �� .-% >- z Q � � c �; � z _� � � �� c � > H� � /` � � � � � .�mi� .�.� , � ____ - , � � - . �z - '--°- ��-_= -"�_'---.. _.. : :_ . . . -'_ �--"-.- 1. 2. 3. � _ 7 �, LI'� 4 � /� 5 MOUNDS VIEW PLA�.�(NING CONIMISSION February 18, 1998 7:00 P.M. . Call to Order Roll Call . . _� .• Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CITIZENS: BEFORE �PEA�ffNG, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND �GI� YOUR FUL]L 1�TAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES Presentation: North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition �� ,.�,�i; F� ;��> c�� ,,��, ,��, �`) ,�I �`'� ��`"`s s� �;,� , s,' University of Minnesota Design Team Planning Case No. 512-98 ��Y�o u�J �� Z) Properiy Involved: 2375 and 23 95 Highway 10 �� '' ;, `` ° � �'� �`' � �� ° C\ -�` w'^g �� "' `L ('�"�4" Considerarion of Resolution No. 53�-98 R.egardi.ng Development Review Applicant: Saturn Development " 6. Planning Case No. 507-97 Properry Involved: 2625 Highway 10, i� 15 - 7761 Eastv�ood Road Discussion Regarding Walgreens Development Request Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning , , Applicant: Told Development Company �-- � 7� Planning Case No. 513-98 -, ,, ,I � ' Pro e Involved: 8265 S nn Lake Road i A[' �� I) r r;`; f �`, � e`"� �_ c; PriY P� � i��e� v� Consideration of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a Seven Foot Variance to the Reqwired t�v E,;s �> 30-foot Front-Yard Setback. Applicant: Preferred Builders, inc. 3. S taff Reports/Information Items � a. Planning Comznissioner Journal Publicarion b. Recap of February 11 Community Forum Meeting Chairperson and Plaiuiizig Com�missioners Reports 10. Adjournment to. Agenda Meeting *#******************��****************** APPLIC.ANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717-4000 1F YOU ARE UNABLE TO AT'I'END. THANK YOU. ******************�********:*****�***** . . _ -.. ;��__ Y== � -- '_' -------, t� .s---�� r.—_,..__.�: E ��-'->—.�--_�. �-_._ _� �.. �, _ � MOUNDS VIEW PLAIVNING COMNIISSION February 18, 1998 (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) • 1 • �L � :. . �. 1. Review of Minutes: a. February 4, 1998 2. Meeting Adjournment V tk �2�� (, /Lv� C� — W-� --��i�.�.o ' �� CJ�\01. Ck �J'4.x.v� (9 �UJ 1� iY�,� c� �`.� . �c�v-�� w-. �l-d�.�n w�(--P..� �-, `�c,�t wc�o �.r�,�:��SL�J Q�@6'1`-�-u-�b� h� L'� . � � �� J � c�-�-�'� "� l,l) �Qk e� c c. e�1�t c� �� j,,�k v cWZ-�-c` r� cz nsL_ cS: �.u� `i-t��.. yc,�,LC�� , _� . . !�'L c�V yi, cLQ.I_ - 1'`� c v�t� d s-c�s �-tio F- �.-i.e.e��'- � wu u�� c� ch.t l�',� c,_ . 1 , p,�,,.� c�- _ r.� �� C w�-�^-ti � s `j:'"'�..e'+ �'I �; �� ..� `- r t i � _.; H---=- 3.�=�.�_ ;� L.. . ,� �� : �_� --- --- _ :, -=_--- _ - �� .. � 1. 2. 3. 4. MOUNDS VIEW PLAI�INING COIVIMISSION Februa�� 18, 1998 � 7:00 P.M. �PECIAL. �ETINC� AGENDA Call to Order Roll Call Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAHING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODILTl1�, Al�d� GIVE YOUR FL1LL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE IYIINUTES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presentation: North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition University of Minnesota Design Team Planning Case No. 512-98 Property Involved: 2375 and 2395 Highway 10 Consideration of Resolution No. 535-98 Regarding Development Review Applicant: Satum Development "� 6. Planning Case No. 507-97 Property Involved: 2625 Highway 10, i715 - 7761 Eastwood Road Discussion Regarding Wa1gr�Pns Development Request Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning , Applicant: Told Development Company 7. Planning Case No. 513-98 Property Involved: 8265 Spring Lake Road Consideration of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a Seven Foot Variance to the Required 30-foot Front-Yard Setback. Applicant: Preferred Builders, Inc. � 10. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Planning Commissioner Journal Publication b. Recap of February 11 Community Forum Meeting Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Adjournment to Agenda Meeting ***********�**************************** APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717-4000 1F YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. *************************************** : � � _ _ � __ _ - - � _ - �r_,i_�. _ :. _. .. ��_�s:: - - __s � - MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION February 1�, 1998 (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) AC�ENDA N�E�IN AGENUA 1. Review of Minutes: a. February 4, 1998 2. Meeting Adjournment � r __ � -' __�- i�___._ �,.>�r'��'a �=_Y._'____'----�------� �..___"_,.-- -'---. - . �.-..... �.�� .'--_- �'.; .-_-.- , ...� -� PLANNIN� C OMMI� SI �JN MEMo To: �Iounds View Plaruiing Commission, City Council, Econoruc Development Commission ` From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: North l�Ietro I-35W Corridor Coalition Date: Febz-uary 13, I998 INTRODU�'�'ION At the February 18, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, city sraff and representatives from the University of �Iinnesota Desi� Center for American Urban Landscape (Design Center) will be preseating information about the North Me�o I-35W Corridor Coalition (Coalition) and asking for input. Ciry staff will present inzormation about the membership, purpose and �oals of the Coalition as we!1 as the pe:ceived benefits to the city in being a member of the Coalition. The Design Center will lead a discussion to idenrify locai planning and econom.ic deveiopmen� issues, emerging issues common to all coaliuon cities, and oppornuuties for and barriers to joint �trategies and actions. BACKGROUND The seven commun.ities of Arden Hills, Blaine, Circle Pi.nes, Mounds Vie��v, New Brighton, Roseville, and Shoreview entered into a joint powers agreement in December 1996 to form the North l�fetro I-.iSW Corrzdor Coalition. The Coalition adopted the foIlowi.ng vision statement: "The Coalition will jointly and coopezativeiy plan for and maximize the opportunities for regional community development, quality �owth and diversification in the North Metro throu;h a system of collaboration." Mayors and city adminis�rators/mana�ers from the seven cides comprise the �overni.ng board and meet on a monthly basis. Community Development or Economic Directors from each of the cities form the Community Deveiopment Comm.ittee. This �oup typically meets twice a month to coordinate and implement the Coalition's work plan. Over the past year, ttze Coalition began buiiding a base from which it can realize its larger vision. This work has inciuded securing outside sources or fundi.n�, layi.n; the foundation for a common Geogaphic Information System (GIS), and buildin; relationships within the Coaliuon as well as other ;overn.m.ental entities such as Anoka and Ramse,� Counties, school districts, state a�encies, nd the Metropolitan Council. A copy of the draft 1997 annual report is attached for your .nformation. �. .� _ t�- ___ ----- J - -- ---- L "� : : _. . ��- � �_..::__�. .--=---- . � � � ---- � 3::F As the Coalition enters its second year, it has placed a priority on developing a subregional planrung framework to shape and direct future work. The Coalition has contracted with the Design Center to assist with establishin� a subregional planning base and framework, a community involvement component, recommendations for ne.�ct phases of work, and strategies for implementatzon. A copy of the 1997-1999 work plan is attached. Fundaznental to establishing this framework is broadening rhe base of conmunity participation beyond the board and community deve!opment committee to include council members, appointed commissions, and i.nterested citize.ns. The Coalition is interested in exploring the full spectrum of community issues from quality of life to economic development to inte:�overnmental relations. The meeting on February I8 is a first step in tYus process. Puture Coalition events will inGlude a Coalition-wide working session for councils and commissions to be held in Vlarch or early April, and a Coalition Summit ta be held in early May. C�ALITION BEiVEFITS The following are potential benefits which communities can receive through panicipation i.n the Coalition: • Development of a common GIS -_ �, • Informatioa Sharing • Joint �farketing of the area • Shared zesources • Cost efficiency • Joint efforts to i.nfluence larger issues and systems that one city alone would have difficulty influencing � • Ability to develop shared strategies and/or joint programs to address issues everyone has in common, e.�. housing and transportation • Ability to coordinate individual city efforts in. redevelopment and planniug • Abiliry to use the umbrella of the Coalition to e:�plore a wide range of challenges and opportunities � • A forum where cities can discuss issues and agree to a�ee or disagree and work toge:he: on those issues where there is a�eement • An opportuniry to change ways ot doing business to make thin�s work better • Provides a unique planning perspective that gene:ates greater awareness of new opportunities � • � Provides an opporttuvity to create a common vision and to work with other �oups � ACTION REQUIltED This is a discussion item so no formal action is required. N:�DAT,�IGROUPS\CO M D E'V�PLANCOMNf�2- l 8-98. �tE:l4 NORTH METRO I-35W CORRIDOR CO.A..LITION 1997 �?��NUAL REPORT �sit our online can%rence cencer at �,�------------ �� .--1 � �i � � � * � � �'-� � �..-�- �,� � � , � � , ,,. ; � ; Bi�� ; �� 1954 � I ; I I I � �it � � f f I �. a• r"-'_„1 i �.�..,-� � C' cIe Pines ' ��~ 959 j � 7� � ` �i ; � � , r Y _ .�� j�� .. __.----�•- ` % j..3� � { � � ' � _ Mounds Vew � � �� 19 � ��' � : � r � ��; � � —' -t— � r _ .{ __ I t • . '� ��' � � �..� , � r ; , horevie � ' I , � ---- , � 1957 '�� l ' _yAZden xilIs - � � ��, _ � }, 195I � i �' • �` � ...l� / ! • � 3 y �� NewBrig�iton � �:t��•' �•��;� I 1891 � . ° '�. �- .+�_ "- ' ;� � � t �e� _.,_ �' , ° y.: . � � _ �-�., � � � �� r � �-� : ~'`1� �, i.l. � � � i.� ♦ � ' ! S � .�1 . �• I t��'_ T •. � • �� I J � , ,�. Y � j � . •� � .. � ? ' . � " � • ; �� -� i ' ° RosevilIe ir �'•'� ' -; ; ,� 19a& s . �°�.��-------� ' � �� The NM I-.�SW Corridor Caalition is the 3rd largest cammunity in Minnesota by population wath over 155,000 residents locared in � caunties arsd 6 sclaool dirtricts. With 83 square miles ol fand. there are SS,000 homes and 4,000 bruznesses witfa 85,000 jobs. There are 775 males oj streers, 43 miles of raal line, 3,000 acres of public parks and open space a�ad 16500 acres of lakes Qnd wedla�sds. Introducing th� Ni�I I-35W Corridor CoaIition The NM I-35W Corridor Coalicion was created on De;e.mber I8, 1996. Seven cide�--Arden Hills, Blaine, Circle Pines, Mounds Vew, New Brigh[on, RosevilIe and Shore�riew—encered in co a Join[ Powe� Ag�,ment form- ing the Coatiuon. The Coalidon adapt�d a visian statement stating the Coalidon will joindy and coope:atively plan for and maxi- mize che opporauiides for regional communiry deveiop- menr, quality growth and diversificarion in the North Me�o rhrough a system of collaboradon. Coal�tion Organizational S t�-ucture The Coalidon conducts its business under a Joint Powers Agreement and relaced by-laws. The Coa1idon has a Baard of Directors comprised 1� members. Each ciry has two voting boai�d members, currendy the May- ors and City Managers and/or Adminisaators serve as d1I'eC:OLS. The Board me�ss monthly and the Communiry De- veiopment Commit�, whiciz is comprised af each ciry's Cammunity Devetopment or EDA director, [ypically meeu twice per monch. 1997 Coaliiion Officers E°resident – Robert Berilce, Mayor of New Brighton V'ue President – Dennis Probst, Mayor of Arden Hills Sccretary and Trea�rurer – Mact Fulton, City Manager, New Brighcon Cvmmunity Devefopment Committee Chair – Dennis Welsch, Community Development Director, Cicy oE RoseviIIe Vice President and Adminirtrator – Joseph D. Strauss. Strauss ,bfanagement Company ✓oivT o-�s��if} J�nu�� sl�itaiN6 � ,c�„e: � . � .a � --� a4�� : � �;,,��,.�x / � i �:.._�/� 1. . .� �� , `-. � � , �� ,��' r;. -, :��. �� i i Jw�:,�� — � � — � vC�NTr w�Rx. 7,c?riS^i�T�7lan/ PtqNNv/f� �� ry,v�- JiIt.NV f5ue-+�G(A��RL ` M/Op�1 COALITION VI�ION STATEMEI�IT "The Coalition will jointly and cooperarively plan for and maz�rr�ize the opportunides for regiona! communiry develapment, qualiry growch and diversijzcation in the North Metro through a s��stem of collaboration.' GOALS Regional Communzty Devetopmerct • Work cooperativeiy wirh iblinnesota Depanment of Transportatian (MnDO'I'), the counaes and other agen- cies co plan for transportation improvement, mass aansit needs, and other infrasnucnue improvements along the 1-35W Comdor to mainrain and improve se�rvice and help stimulat� business �owth and ]abor availabiliry � Deveiop a joint marlcecing pro�am among mem- bers to at�act and retain qualicy industrial and commer- cial tax base and employment • Develop a coordinated, collaboxati�e darabase and GIS sys�em to efficiently share informadon and develop consiscent and cooperadve land use policies • Ensure rhat an effecrively nained work force is avail- able to meet the needs of the business community and ensure chac reverse commudng and empioyee mobiliry concepcs are linked togesher in the Nonh Meuv area Quality Growth . Research the curren[ business base and the avail- ability of redeveiopment opportnnides and vacanc land co identify a saategic plan for all cnmmunides Develop a code of ethics for Coalition communides � use as an acu-action and recention taol • Develop collaborative and eoocciinaced efforrs in other areas of regional municipal inrerest, including �- ing, resource sharing and program development • Research and identify cont�minated sites: pursue funding sources for redevelopment and ensure �he maxi- mum usage to support quality redevelopmenc Diversifzcation • Deve:op a strategy to ensure adequace life-cycle housing opporcunides in member cides • Proactively pursue the use and distribudon of all available resources to ensure tha[ housing needs are ad- equarely me[ 1.997-1999 WORK PLA�� Geographzc Information Systems • Develop a parcel Data Base • Develop a Building Da[a Base and CommerciallIn- dusu�ial Inventory • Incegzate iVliscellaneous Dara • Implemenc a Data Base :vfaintenance, Enhancement and Coordinadon System + Develop Joint Usage of Equipmen[ S�ategies + Develop E?ecrronic Data Links Between Cities • Develop Data Disseminadon Techniques • Develop Coalidon `One-Stop-Shop' for DataAccess • GIS Training for Members • Develop Electronic Links Between GIS and OCR Data Bases • Incorporace Regionally Significanc GIS Dat�lbases • IdentiEy and Produce Custom GIS Applicadons Comprehensive Livable Community Urban Design Framework and Transportation Study • Development of a Smdy Context to build a compre- hensive foundadon to guide future acuvides• Included in che contezt will be a review and synthesis of compre- hensive plans for each member communiry and an over- lay of applicable planning documents finm other end- ties• an inventory and synthesis of capital improvemenc pians fivm reIevant public and privane agencies; an as- sessment of ecanamic deveiopmen[, redevelopment and housing issues ac the subregional levei; and review and incegradon ot the ongoing GIS initiaave. • prepare a Coaliaon woridng marriac to assisc mem- b�s in the managing iu diverse work plan and in devei- oping stracegies co fill gaps. ro clarifY working �lation- ships. and to adopt a code of ethics or protocols for op- era[ions. • Develop and implement a Coalition e�ucadon pra gr.un to: a) increase public awareness of the Coalidon and to en,age che public in Coalirion activines; b) to actively involve local eiected officials and cnm- mission members in Coalidon acrivities and to encour- age netwoc�cing wict►in the group; and c) co involve a cross-secrion of ciry scaff in working sessions thac iocus on Coaiiaon activiues and operadons. • Complctc an assessmcn[ of immediate transpocta- �ion ne�ds of inembers, including an inven�ory of ciues, county, and sta�e projects, policies and implementacion schedules and provide an overview of cunenc and im- mediate transportation projec�s, barriers and proposcd scrategies, with the result qf [he assessment to be fotded .nto a s�udy concext ro become the basis for a larger, long range study. • • Develop a consultant pool for a later RFQ and IZFi:' scudy phase. Subredional Comprehensive Pfanr�an� Review Program The Coaliuon praposes a subre�ional comprehensive. p(anning review program for the Nfetropolitan Council Following the Regional Blueprint ta include: a) a set of common terms, definirion and formats Coc data presentation used ac [he beginning oE each communi[y's plan documenc; b) performance criteria that may be used for evalu� aang Coaiition communides comprehensive plans; and c) stra[egies for int�graaon oF local planning and program efforts wi[hin subregional and regionai issues/ systems sta�ements. Bconomic Development and Redevelopment Code of Ethics The Coalirion incends to adopc a Code oP Echics to coordinate economic developmen[ and redevelopme:►t activities and opporcuniaes. Economic Develvpment and Redevelopment The Coaiidon wiil identify collaboradve saategies that will provide member communicies wi[h a comperidve advantage in the economic development and redevelop- men[ marketplace. F�ousing The Coalician will develap housing strategies, recommen- daaons and outcomes that can be tumed inco specifce ac- [ion steps. �Yfarkeling and Puhlic Relations • The Coalidon will deveiop a joint marketing and public relauons progra.m co promo�e various components of i�s work plan. • Thc Coalition will develop and maintain a Coali- tion "home page" on the internet that can be accessed by �he public. Contaminated Land Reclamataon Planning �tembercommuniries will identify contaminated sices within their respeccive boundaries tha[ represent a great opportunicy for remediaaon, revicalizadon and reuse For devetopmenc and redevelopment, both forcommer�ial and induscrial and in-fill housing oppanunicies. .. :. ,: _�;oalition �har,iri ��o�� -1'�e �oalihon is:.wc :; tzate Z:ebislaCure al �;�, ��;��,,�,z��,, ed�;to � el, ;: 'aT�� i� ri a �: cc o ta �n� Coalition's Major Accomplishments in 1997 Organlzatiort $uilding and Fr�nd Rairing • focmed rhe Joint Powers Coalition . adopted a 1997-1998 Budgec . adopted 1997-1999 Work Pian • secured �6I7,500 in gr�c� and con�ibu[ions from vanous sources Geo�raphic lnformaaion Systemr • completed consultant con¢act for Ph�se I and II of GIS worlc plan • completad Ph�se I of the GIS WorSc Plan for Rsmsey counry communicies • concracted with Minnesota Real EstatE 7oumal(OCR) for use of i�s commerciaUinduscria! daca base • began rhe procrss of updacing commezcia(�mdusorial utd vacant land data in ordrr tn have cunent dara for marlce�lace �en $ubregional Pfaaning Framework • conaacted with Design. Cencer for American Urban ' Landscape to implemenc Phase I. Tcacic 1 oF the Coa- Gcion Comprehcnsive Communiry Urban F.ramework and Transportauon S[udy • inidaced the fusc sceps w implemene a sub-regional comprehensive planning modei Education Program • hosced a tour a+ith decision makers through Coali[ion communities by bus to wimess devclopmen[ snd re- development accivides snd plans Coalition Members Contribute Time, Talent and Resources �alition members have invested hundreds of hours, �55,�90 in membership fee,s and thousand of dollars of suppties and rela[ed resources to initiate this effort. Coaiition Receives �b17,500 in Public and Private Sector Grants and Coniributions The Cualidon has been successful in attracting funding to assisc in che implemenradon of its Work Plan. Public Sector Support • The 1997 �Iinnesota Le�slature, through the De- partmen[ of Trade and Economic Deveiopmenc, passed legisladon supporting the Coalidon effon wich a�200,OQ0 b�rant. These funds can be used by [he Coaiition as de- [ermined by i�s Board. • The MeQOgolitan Council, rhrough its Livable Com- �iniry Demons�ation Accounc, au[horized $131,250 to plemenc rhe first phase of the Coali[ions' Comprehen- sive Livable Community Urban Design Framework and Transporration S tudy. In addidon, the Council authorized a grant in [he amount of �7,500 [o assist the Coalidon in irs sub-regionai pIanning exercise. And Mea�oGIS ap- proved a gran[ in the amounc of $20,000 to assist the Coalition complete its Phase II GIS work plan compo- nen [. • Ramsey Counry has conrribu[ed �9,750 to pay for a ponion of che Coalidon's adminisu�adve expenses. Private Sector Support • The McKnight Foundation approved a three-year funding graant totaling �175,000. • The business communiry con�ibuced �6,000 to the Coaliuon in 1997. •'Ihe Design Cencer for American Urban Landscape, University of Minnesora, thraugh funding suppon from the Mc:Cnight Founda�on, Daycon Hudson Foundation and the Center for Transponadon Sbudies, has commit- ted to con�ibute �68,000 of in-{dnd services to assist the Coalician implement its 1997-1998 Woric Plan. Coalition Good News: 1997 Was a Banner Year .f'or C'ommunities • Bui.Iding permits (5,?.52) up IS% over [he four yearaverage • Totai new investment in the Community over �204M, up 165% �om the four �ear average • Ne�� commercial/industrial construccion up 85% to �47.6iVi over the four year average of �25.bM • Renovadon of comme:cia.I/'indusuial space was up ZZ% ro a high of �61.4M • Housing value was up 59% co �58.9M from �372M over the four year average • Average housing price was ove: �I20,000 In the fumre, �:e above bench marks can be used to me :s�e future Coalidon success. 2 _ _ ,_--; � �_- - � _ _ - --- - - -- . : � .. ,- -- - . , _--- _ _-_._ -. r. ._.- .__ r... �.J.: .�. NORTH METRO I-35W CORRIDOR COALITION 1997 ��tN[JAL. REPORT V'csit orlr online canference center at 'r'�.t----- * -- - ; � �� `� � , e �� w � ri' � (ai nS 1954 } � � � R � ,.._------�-- � : 1 -r------ i�foundc Yew ` 19�$ - ty 1 r�• � � New Brig�iton t� I841� . ' ; .t i ' _ ' `� ' � ` ,�' f� �.; r , i � ' - . � � I ' r"-� �q_ � • C' cIe °incs �' ` � � 1959 . �� > , 4' _:�_I_,_Js� � i + �� } _�__ `�.�r �� r � � shctevi� , 1 1957 n�a� x�ts - . • �� ,. 1951 � 1 �1i► •�f �� 3 T II �. ° ,a� ; _� � � •�� r- . J� � :. , =,�,�. �'�� '� � .� _ L�. � 'rx` .. i,�.... � '� n�/, �, ! � ., � . . ,j i � ~ � •. ► i � . •� � ..• i . � ' � • ; � � •� i � � RosevilIe�� }r � "d • -: ; , 194� �; `1— • - • � � � The NM I-3SW Corridor Coaliteon is che.3rd largest corrcmunity in Minaesota by populatioR with over ISS,000 residenu loeated in � cortruies and 6 school disrricts. With 83 square miles of land, there are SS,000 homrs and 4,000 businesses with 85,OOp jobs. There are 77S miles of streeu, 43 miles af rail line, 3,000 acres of p�61ic �arfct and ope,a space a�d 16,500 acru of lakes and wetlandr. ��trodu�cing t�e I�M[ I-35W Corridor CoaIiii�n 'I�e NM I-35W Corridor Caalidon was cmated on I3ecember 18, 1996_ Seven ci[ie�Arden H'iI1s�Blaine, CircIe Fines, Mounds vew, New Brightnn, Ro ��se�`c�Ie and S horeview—entered in to a Joint Powers Ag�eement form- ing the Coaliuon. 'Iiie Coalzdon adopt�d a vision sratement sraring the Coalidon will jointly and coope:adveIy plan for and maxi- mize the opporntnides for regiona! communiry deveiop- ment, quality grnwth and diversificaaon in the North Metro through a system of collaboradon. . Coalition Organizational - . � Siructure -,. � �. . -� The Coalidoa conducts its business under a.Toint Powers Agrcement and reIated by-laws. Thc Caalidon . has a Board of D"uectors comprised 14 membe�. Eacii city has two vodng board membeis, aure,ndy the May- ors and City Managers and/or Adminisuators scrve as d1TP.t:±OI'$. The Board meets monthly and the Communiry De- veiapment Comtnittx, wfucfi is comprised of each cicy's Community Deveiapmen[ or EDA direcwr, typically meeu twice per manth . � 1997 Coalition Officers Preside�t - Robert Benlce. Mayor of New Brighton V'rce President - Dennis Probst, Mayor of Arden Hi1Ls Sccretaiy and Treasurer - Mau Fultqn, City Manager, New Brighton Cnmmunity Develnprruat Cammictee Chair - Dennis Welsch, Communiry Deveiopment Director. City of RoseviIle V°tce President and ddmiairbratar - Joseph D. Strauss, Strauss Management Company draft 1?/9/�^7 Yorth tiletro I-3�W Corridor Coalition 1997 - 1999 Work P1an n,.Qra�fi�ic information SvStems (GIS� • Develapmeut of Data Base -(January 1997 -1�Iarch, 1998) ihe development of an accurate and compatible data base is of u�rnost impoRance to the succ�ssi+,�.�; implementation of a shared GIS system. To that end, Phase I- Part I of this task will be the incorporation of data which is curreatly available (i.e., parcels, road names, zoninQ, e:cistin� iand t�e and othe: assessor and tax attributes) irom the t�vo par�icipatin� counties (rinoka and �amsey). � Development of Building I7ata Base and CommerciaUIndustrial Inveutory (Januaz-y 199� - December 1998} Phase I- Part 2 would focus on the linking of appropriate County assessor core buildi.ng data and associated addresses, inciudin� multi-teaants to buildin� footprints. The resulting data base woul�i be related bac;� to tb.e underlyin� parcel data base and assist in the development of not only an inventor�f of current commerciaUirzdustrial activiry, but also in the futur� deve?opment capaciry o� sites thzou�hout the comdor. T'nis data base will also be linked to the OCR data base. This Droce:;� 4 may also be used to deternine residentiai developable sites. � Inte�ration of l�IisceIInneous Data -(SepteLUber, 1997 -,7uIy, 199�) Phase I- Pa.rt 2 will include the incorporarion of data from miscellaneous sources. The data to bn incorporated in this task may include: hydrography, (inciuding wetlands delin�ation;, road edQes, diaital aerial photographs and topo�raphy. � Data Base Maintenance/EnhancemteadCoordination (January 1998 - Ongoing) V[uch of the GIS data to be used by the Coalition is dynamic in nature and requires constant updating. In addition, these da.ta sets ori�inate from a variety of organizations. Cazeful and logi�a� managemeat of data. is essential for data to be accurate aad up to date. A full-time coordinator/mana�er is required to work with member cities and ouuide a�encies in this task and a'I other work pzoaram issues. � Joint Usaae of Equipment (JuIy 1997 - December 1999) The desire by the member ciries to collaboratively work on GIS presents oppominities for joint usa�e of espe:isive hardwaze. The cities will deve!op an a�eement which specifies what hardware will be shared by whom and under what czrcumstances (i.e., time and money). • DeveioQmeat of Electronic Data Link.lges Bet�veen Cities -(June - December,199'� The "knitting" of eiectronic data between the cities will provide the opportunity for any Coalition member to "look outside of the box". These opoortuniues will lead to tke abiliry to jointly market the cities for economic deve(opment and redevelopment purpvses. This can be realized by establishing hi�h-speed data transmission connec�ons betwe�n mem6er cities using e:cisrin; inirastructuze where possible. U:1f-35 W�CD-COMM\ WORKPC.�\M97W RKPLV.DOC 1 r � --- _ . _ �=_._. _�-� �. f�.:=-------- -- r--- — � r - i A. Development of a Studv Context (December 1997 - February 1998) -- T'he purpose ot the context is co build a comprehensive fo►.uidation from which [he Coalition can complete the remainde; of the study and to �uide future Coalition activities. Inciuded in rhe conte:ct will be a review and synthesis ot compreheasive plans &om each•of the Coalition's participatina communities and an , overlay or applicable plannin; documents from.bthe: entities; an inventory and synthesis of capital iznprovement plans from relevant publze and private aQencies; an assessment ofeconomic deve[opment , redevelopment and housing issues at the subregional level; and review and ,� inte� acion of the ongoin; Coalition GIS initiative. B. Preparation or a Coalition Workin; vlatri:c (.Tanuar� 1998 - February 1998) -- The purpose of the maazx is to assist members of the Coalition in mana�ina its diverse work plan and in developin� s�ate�ies to fiIl gaps, to ctariry wor.king relationsiups, and to adopr a code oiethics or protocols for operations. C. Development and Implementation of a Coalitzon Education Program (Febrvary 1998 - Nlarch 1998) -- The purpose of tfie education prograrzt is three-iold: 1) to increase public awareness of the Coaiition and to engage the public in Coalition activities; 2) to actively involve local elected o�cials anci commission members in Coalition activities and o encourage networking within this �oup; and 3) to involve a cross-sectzon of city staff in wor.�cin� sessions that focus on Coalition activities and operations. D. Assessment of Immediate Transportarion Needs (December 1997 -February 1998) -- Tlv.s assessmenc is intended to provide the Coalition wich a set of short- and 1on�-term recommendations for addressin� immediate transportarion needs within tEie �comdor. Included in tb.e assessment will be inventories of city, county, and state pzojects, policies, and implementation schedules. These inventories will be consolidated to provide the Coalition with a comprehensive overview of current and immediate transportation projects, barriers, and proposed strategi.es. Results from this �ssessment will be folded into the study conte:ct and become the basis for the lar;e:, long-ran�e studies anticipated i.n Phase I Track Z and Phase II. � - E. Development of a Consuitant Pool for Phase I Trac?c Z(February 1998 - March 1998) -- An RFQ will be deve!oped to �enerate the consultant pool. The board will develop an evaluation process for consulta.nt seiection, which will be ove�een by the board. 3 Subre�ional Com�rehensive Plannin; Revie�v Progr�m (Tannarv 199R— 4prii l99$1 In comoliance with State Le2islation, cities in the metropolitan re;ivn must prepare and submit an upda�ed comprehensive pIan to the il�tetropolitan Council for revie�N by December 3 I, 1998. The Coaiition views this mandate as an opportuniry to propose a subre�ional program for common vfetropolitaa Council plannin; review following the Re;ional Blueprint To that end, the Coalition will work with the Desi� Center for American Urban Landscape to prepare a pro�am proposal for preseatation to the vletropolitan Council. The proposed program wvuld include: a) a set of commor� te:ms, definition and formats for data prese:�cation used at the be;inning of each community's pian document; b) performance criteria that miahc be used for evaluating Coalition communities comprehensive plans and c) s�a�ate�ies for inte�rauon local pianning and prooram efforts wirh subre;ional and re�ianal issues/systems statements. U:1(-3 ��V\CD-CO�I��i\WORhPL�M97�V RKPLN.DOC ��. kwt�..-v_._��-_- _.,. . t.�_ - . __� _ _-__�.; }-- ---- - ^'� �.__...- ��_ -�_il �:_;�' ._'----- --. .. . .. - _ . . .�_ • Want to foster innovation in housina opcions. • Want to encoura�e housing that.uses both land and infrastructure more efficiently and couoled wiiz`� Livable Community objectives. •��%ant to create housin� that is less de�endent on the automobile and lin.ked to public transit. • Watit to provide dollars to improve neiQhbornood ameaities (replace infrastructure) to support housin� value. • Want to understand why thin�s really are the wav the;i are. . • �Vant to have confidence that we can achieve these outcomes...... Other comments: • Snould we cons;der a Coalition housin� resource ceater? • Snould we adopt a lon� te;�n goal to establish a unizied HR�? • Should we attempt to adoot a standard f�ousin; maincenance code? � Should we atte:npt to coordinate with various volun.teer �roups? � How do we start to promote a Coalition remodeling pro�-am? � What kind of data can we collect now that will heip unde:stand some of the issues. e.g., * value oz properties * condition of properry * last pe:mit issued * a�e of housing 7. 1�Iarf:etin� and Puhlic Relations • Joint l�larketin� and Public Reiations Progr�ms (December, 1997- December,1999) The Coalition communities will develop joint mariceting and public relations progzams to promote various components of its workplan. This assianment will be assurned by a subcommirtee comprised of City Vlana�ers. • Praduce Joint Coalition Web Site -�Iarci�,1997 - December,1999.) Desi�, implement, and maintain a Coaiiuon home paae on the internet th�at can be accessed by the public. This assignment will be assumed by the Coffununiry Development Communiry. 8. Cnntaminated Land Use PlanninQ • Identify Under-UtiIized Parceis of Land Currently Contaminated and Underutilized - (September, 1997 - December, 1998) The vorth Y[e�o I-3�W corridor communities have numerous contaminate3 land sites. These parcels represent a�eat opportuniry for reviralizauon and reuse for development and redeve!opment - both for commercial and indust�zal and in-fiiI housin� opportuniries. .� collaborative effort will be underraken to identify contaminated Iand, inidate remediation and place these pazcels back into effective use in a coordinated manne:. The objec�ve is consistent wi�li the l�Ietro Council's re- investment strategy within deve(oped areas. U:\[-35W�CD-COMM\WORI�PL:�V\97WRKPLN.DOC � . 1. '.:. .. _ _ ._ . ... f: . i . . ; . . ' _� � __ - _ '._.f.'.�.`�_' �. _ �:<s:_._..' "' _ '_"___'_'. . � � — " _ ._ . ., c. . . . _ . . i_ k _ _ _. � � - ....:.i � � �n�-, � —. . � .. � .. _ a .--� _�..�. _.��.___ _" . _ —. —_-- (: �: REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: Stafi Report by: Planning Case No: Request: Petitioner: Location: PIN Noo Zoning/ Land Use: February 18, 1998 James Ericson, Planning Associate 512-98 Approval of a revised development review to a11ow for the expansion of the Saturn dealership Saturn Development Company, represented by Jim Price 2375 and 2395 Highway 10 OS-30-23-31-0001, 2, 3 B-3, Highway Business Commercial / Saturn Auto Dealership Applicable Regulations: Section 1006.06, entitled "Development Controls," requires that all proposed industrial, commercial and residential developments and expansions of existing facilities ... must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Attachments: Ramsey County Request for Combination, dared 2/5/98 Revised Site Plan, dated 2/12/98 (Separate Attachment) Revised Photometric Analysis, dated 1/30/98 (Separate Attachment) Planning Commission Resolution No. 535-98 Background: On February 4, 1998, the Planning Commission discussed the proposal to revise the site plans for the Saturn auto dealership which were originally approved in 1996. The plans were to expand their operation by adding showroom space, service bays and a car wash. The difference between the 1996 expansion (not implemented) and the 1998 expansion is that the majority of the expansion would be to the east of the e�cisting structure, with the exception of the car wash. One additional service bay and increased showroom floor area account for the increased building area from the 1996 approved plans. Because of issues raised during the 1996 approval process, residents within 350 feet of the Saturn property were notified of this meeting. Analysis As was discussed at the last meeting, the primary issues with this development proposal concern availability of parking, site lighting and the possibility that Rice Creek Watershed District might require on-site stonnwater storage. The applicant was directed to produce a more detailed photometric analysis to ensure that glare and light spillage are within City Code requirements, provide documentation from Ramsey County indicating that the three lots are joined together, and 1__ —_' _ .. . _��5� _ fi:�_ .__' "_..._.�_� � _/ _ c—____,aavs._..� - --=-.� �� y,-r.�a�£1�..>.___'"'�. :J L� — _'. .,. _.....r _ JI I.._ _ _—__. .._"___ � -.-` ___: . ^ .:. ._. . ':� . . .:: . .� _ ' Planning Case No. 512-98 2375- 2395 Highway 10 February 18, 1998 Page 2 revise the site plans to (1) show at least 22 parking stalls for customers and at least 27 stall for employees, (2) delete the reference to an existing sign on the former Citgo property, and (3) show the method by which stormwater will be captured on-site. The revised site plan dated 2/12/98 shows that requested changes have been made with regard to the parking counts, handicapped stalls, garbage dumpster enclosure details and the change to the sign fronting Highway 10. The applicant is scheduled to appear before the RCWD board on February 25, 1998 for its stormwater permit. Staffrecommends that in the meantime, the Planning Commission should approve the site plan as is without on-site strormwater detention. All of the dimensional requirements applicable to this proposal are met, as are the conditions imposed by the CUP, with the exception of Section 1114.04, Subd. 8(1) which states that a minimum 10% of the property, excluding setback requirements, is required for landscaped greenspace. The Planning Commission indicated that because of the e�raordinary amount of setback from Highway 10, the greenspace therein could apply toward the 10%, thereby fulfilling the requirement. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 535-98 recommending approval of the development review request made by Saturn Development Company, with the following stipulations: The applicant shall revise site plans prior to City Council to show how stormwater run-off will be captured and detained if on-site detention is required by the Rice Creek Watershed District. 2. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant sha11 accomplish the following: a. Obtain access and grading permits from MnDOT and Ramsey County if required and provide proof of such permit or permission to the City. b. Obtain a Rice Creek Watershed District permit. Remove the two incidental directional signs from the Co. Rd. H2 right of way. d. Enter into a deveiopment agreement with the City. N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V1DE VCASESl512-98�.SATURN.PC2 �=-_ �1 �S REQUEST �'OR COIi�BlNATION OF CONTIGUOflS P�OPERT/ES DIRECTOR OF PROPERTY RECORDS ic REVENIIE SIIITE 824 • 50 RELLOGG BLVD. A. STo PAIILo MN. 55102-1696 DATE: February 5, 1998 ---------------------------------------- II+d�ORTANT NOTTCE TO T.AgPAYER: +PINS must b� in SAME Taxinq,Tax Increment � Watershed Dis� tricts. +Owners {listed on tax statements) MIIST be the same in order ta combine property. +Property will NO�.� be com.bined if there ara delinquent taxes ot.,cu�;ent '�axes on any parcel. +Property purchased by CONTRACT FOR DEED "AILL NOT" be combined unless both the FEE OANER and the CoNTRACT PURCHASER sign. ------------�----------�------------------------------ I, the FEE OWNER of the Real Est�te identified by the following code numbers agree that the pro�a�rty identified below may be combined into one description fer ta� purposes oaly: (1) 08-30-23-31-0001 SATURN DEVELO MEiT COMPANY, :L,LC (2) 08-30-23-31-0002 ( 3 ) 08-30-23-31-0003 3igned:Bv: y Code Numbers (pTN) James rice, Vice Presidei�t I, the CONTRACT PIIRCHASER of the Real Estate i tif'ed by the following code numbers request that the same be co ined into one description for tax purposes only: Signed: � Code Numbers (PIN) � The new description is to be effective for taxes payable in the year 1998 [MIIST BE FILED BEFORE 12/31 TO AFFECT FOLLOAING YEAIi3 TAS] . PLEASE MAIL FIITIIRE TA% STATEMENTS TO: NAME: Saturn Develooment Comoanv LLC - ADDRESS:.3400 Hiahcaay 61, Vadnais Heicrhts, Mv ZIP+4 55110-5236 �� -� -��- � ---------------------------------- FOR OFFICE IISE ONLY: CHECR OANERSHIP/DELINQ. TAXES PIIBLIC SERVICE CHECK CIIRRENT TAXE3 JIIDY BOLI.M�TN [FOLLOA-IIP AND COLLECTION] CHECR HOMESTEAD HOMESTEAD STAFF CIRCLE ONE APPROVED DENIED APPROVED DEPIIED APPROVED DENIED � ( _ _ _ _ � _ �---.�----' - ---,; - � _ . �-'-°- -_-_°------- I__-. _ _ _�_._� -- - �z_�:��------ -- --� v�_- .�,r_'____.5� .._ - -- �---- r MEil�10RANDUM WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A. TO: Jim Price FROM: Becky Anderson DATE: February 4, 1998 . . �. , •,,. ��.�:�::;_. RE: Moundsview Property Request For Combination of Contiguous Properties This memo is being prepared to document the information I reIayed to you via telephone this date. I spolce with the Ramsey County Office of the Tax Clerlc (Judy Bollman 266-2023) today concerning the procedure involved in their handling of a request to combine contiguous properties and was given the following information: ^ (1) Taxpayer/Owner completes "Request For Combination of Contiguous Properties" form, makes sure requirements noted thereon are met and subrzuts the executed form to the Tax Clerk's office for, handling; (2) The TaY Clerk's office sends the request to the Mapping Department where a combined new identification number is ultimately assigned; and (3) From the Mapping Department, the request is sen.t to the Assessor's Office where the tax base for the property, as combined, is re-assessed. The process takes anywhere from one (1) to two (2) months. The preference of the Tax Clerk's office is that the form be filed in November since by that time that year's taxes have been paid and the next year's tax statements are not issued until the following March; however, they will process requests throughout the tax year. They understand �:` _ __:_� that the assessed taxes are often lower for a combined property than that for the same property identified as separate tax parcels. ThP Tax O�ce �uggests that if a request to combine contibuous parcels is made and remains ��ending during a period when 'r..�xes come due chat the taxpayer should contact their office just prior to making any tax payments to confirm that r�c� assessment changes have yet gone ii�to effect. • .. • 4.•�M� - `��'�` .' �,.. ' '�I.+.•. cc: Jon J. Hoganson, Esq. STP1: 440754-1 � -2- � �{ ---- -= -_ --� ��. __—_�_—� ; e_ . _ � � _ ��.� _ _ _ , � — --- _ �.-� MOUNDS'VIEW PLANNING COlVIlVIISSIOI�T RESOLUTTON NO. 535-98 CTTY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY S7CATE O�' MINNESO�A RESOLUTION �COMIVIENDING APPROVAL ()F A i�EVELOPMENT REVIIEW FOR aH� �X�Al�SION OF THE SATURN DEALE��HI� AT 2375 AND 2395 ffiGHWAY 10; P'�,A,NNING CAS� NO. 512-�8 Wf-IEREAS, Saturn Development has requested City approval to expand its dealership at 2375 Highway 10 to include the property at 2395 Highway 10, to expand building square footage and add a car wash, and to expand the types of repair services available; and VV��REAS, the Mounds View City Council approved Resolution 5042 on IZ/9/96 approving a development review and conditional use permii for Saturn Development to expand its facilities and to allow for automotive sales and repair and a car wash; and, WI�REAS, Saturn Development did not implement the approved 1996 site plans; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Plaruiing Application dated 1-12-98 Zoning and Location Map City Council Resolution 5042 Site Plans dated 1/9/98 Revised Site Plan, dated 2/12/98 Revised Photometric Analysis, dated 1/30/98 Ramsey County Request for Properiy Combination, dated 2/5/98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Plarming Commission finds that the following dimensional requirements as set forth in Chapter 1104 of the Municipal Code have been met: Dimensional Re�uirements: Building Height: Building Setbacks Front (Highway 10): Rear (County Rd. I): East Side: Parking Lot Setbacks Front (Highway 10): Rear (County Rd. I.): East Side: Parking spaces Customer: Employees: R ir Pr vi Met/Not Met S 45 feet 20 feet Met 30 feet 115 feet Met 20 feet 37 feet Met 10 feet 60 feet Met 3 0 feet 3 0 feet Met 5 feet 6 feet Met 5 feet 10 feet Met 22 spaces 23 spaces Met 27 spaces 28 spaces Met , � - . _; � �_ _ _� . . � �� _ �� - y�.--- . . � - -- --------- -- � � - --- --- - - - ---_- - --• — - --� r �.� .. _.� � Planning Commission Resolution 535-98 Saturn Dealership Development Review , February 18, 1998 � Page 2 WI�REAS, the 11�Iounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plans dated 1/9/9� conform to the requirements concerning car washes, automotive repair and automotive sales as stated in Section 1114.04; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maunds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Mounds View City Council that the development review requested by Saturn Development be approved, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall revise the site plans prior to City Council review to show how stormwater run-offwill be captured and detained if on-site detention is required by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall accomplish the following: a. Obtain access and grading permits from MnDOT and Ramsey County if required and provide proof of such permit or permission to the City. b. Obtain a Rice Creek Watershed District permit. c. Remove the two incidental directional signs from the County Road HZ right of way. d. Enter into a development agreement with the City. BE IT FLTRTT�R RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 18th day of February, 1998 ATTEST: Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director _ -�,__ . . � __ , t. �-- - - - ----� �� _� - --- - - - - -=- --- -_ - - - --- - --- - -- - . ; Plarin.in Commission g Memo TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Jim Ericson, Planning Associate SUBJECT: Walgreens Development Proposal DATE: February 12, 1998 At your last meeting on February 4, 1998, the issue of whether or not it would be appropriate to rezone residential properties and amend the comprehensive plan to allow for the development of a Walgreens store at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and County Road I was discussed. Attached is the staff report from that meeting, along with revised site plans showing curb cuts on County Road I and memoranda from Benshoof & Associates with regard to traffic issues raised at the last meeting. While the Planning Commission examined the proposal on a number of levels, little time was spent discussing the proposal from a broader perspective. Is the proposal appropriate given the existing land uses? This is the type of issue that the City (its commissions, Council and residents) through the comprehensive planning process will be addressing not only on the subject properties but on all properties within the City. As was brought up at the first community forum held to generate input for the comprehensive plan update, the City's residential areas are for the most part established with no foreseeable or desired changes. The primary focus will be on the Highway 10 corridor--the properties fronting Highway 10 and those adjacent to them. The current proposal is one such example of this. With the additional information that will be presented both herein and at the meeting on February 18, 1998, staff will be seeking direction from the Planning Commission with regard to drafting a resolution recommending either approval or denial of the rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment requests. .,_ : _ _ __ __ , _ . �..a . s �:_ i . ; � . z ,. .�._ .' �. <=�.f:, � - t �- --- _.e_ . ---�- - - - --- - - -- -- -� ----3 — .- - ----- -- - —� REQUEST FOR PLANNING CONIlVIISSION ACTION Meeting Date: Staff Report by: Planning Case No.: Itequest: Petitioner: �ocationo PIN Nos.: Zoning/Land Use: Applicable Regu➢ations: February 4, 1998 James Ericson, Planning Associate 507-97 A. Comprehensive Plan amendment from low- and high density residential to neighborhood commercial B. Rezoning from R-1 (Sing�e-family Residential) and R-3 (Medium density Residential) to B-2 (Limited Business) TOLD Development Company 2625 Highway 10 06-30-23-44-0029 thru 0032 inclusive, and 0051 R-1 and R-3; four single-family residences, one vacant lot. Comprehensive Plan: In 1976, the State Legislature enacted the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act which requires that all local units of government within the Metropolitan Area prepare a comprehensive plan. According to Section 401.09 of the Municipal Code, the City has adopted the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mounds View, dated 1979, as its plan for future development and growth within the City. It has been the City's practice to have the Planning Corrunission recommend and the City Council adopt comprehensive plan amendments. Rezoning: The Planning Commission shall evaluate the possible adverse effects of a rezoning request based upon (but not limited to) the following factors (Section 1125.01 Subd. l.e.): (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. _ _.� L- _ _ �__ �� _� � I` _ �._. �_ . �.- -- - � - Planning Commission Report TOLD Development Co. Case # 507-97 January 14, 1998 Page 2 Background: The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, major subdivision and development review for properties located at 2625 Highway 10, and 7715 - 7761 Eastwood Road to allow for the construction of a Walgreens Drug Store. The property fronting Highway 10 is owned by the City of Mounds View while the four single-family properties on Eastwood Road are under separate ownership. TOLD Development Co. has purchase agreements in force for each of the properties. In addition, the applicant requests that the street bisecting these parcels (Eastwood Road) be vacated and replaced with a cul-de-sac. The area of proposed development covers approximately 3.88 acres, including the Eastwood Road right of way. The current zoning is split with the City-owned parcel zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential and the parcels on Eastwood Road zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential. The proposed zoning is B-2, Neighborhood Commercial, which would allow the above-described use or similar uses such as a financial institution, office building, floral shop, hardware store or off-sale liquor sales. As part of the review of this project, two neighborhood meetings were held on October 22, 199i, and on November 5, 1997. Comments from citizens were used to identify issues which needed to be addressed in this review. Most of those issues are covered in the rezoning section of th:s report. While this report addresses only the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning requests, the Planning Commission may discuss the other actions required for this development to proceed as well. Analysis: A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Background: The Comprehensive Plan divided the City into 12 planning districts, and included a map showing proposed land use for each district. The subject properties are located in District 6. A copy of this map and the text which accompanied the map is attached to this report. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the undeveloped, City-owned parcel should be developed as high density residential, which the plan indicates is 7 or more units per acre. At 1.58 acres, the vacant lot could support a multi-level apartment building although the likelihood of this is minimal due to site constraints and lack of access. The single-family residences on Eastwood are designated as low-density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. Iss�es: The question before the Planning Commission is whether the Comprehensive Plan, which is intended to guide future development of the City, should be amended to change the expectations for the subject properties to allow for a commercial use in a residential area. The applicant will point out that this location, at the corner of Highway 10 and County Road I, is one of the busiest intersections of the City in terms o£traffic counts, and as such, would be best served by a commercial land use designation. Of the greatest concern, however, is that the development as proposed would involve the removal of four single-family homes. Houses on the west side of Greenwood Drive would then back up to a commercial development instead of more single-family -_- - - --- _ . _ y _;: _: ;: : , . 1 - _ _ -,, - _— . � � �-- __._._ .`�-----�--- --- :. _ _ ---- - � - -_-= Planning Commission Report TOLD Development Co. Case # 507-97 January 14, 1998 Page 3 homes, which is the case currently. 1. Bufg'er. The developer has indicated a strong willingness to work with area residents on making this site as non-intrusive and aesthetically appealing as is possible. It has been proposed that there would be a wide buffer of 75 to 80 feet between the parking area of the Walgreens and the residential properties fronting on Greenwood Drive. While this would be a significant buffer in terms of distance, it would be further enhanced by a number of screening alternatives, such as a residential style privacy fence, bernung, or evergreen and deciduous trees planted to separate the commercial use from the residences behind it. 2. S�ritability for �.tesidential Development. There is some question whether it is appropriate to allow any additional residential development adjacent to Highway 10. A previous proposal for the vacant parcel called for rental townhomes, which was met with strong neighborhood opposition. The residential goals and policies from the Comprehensive Plan are attached to this report for reference. 3. �alue as Commercial Property. After purchasing the property, the City attempted to market its property for a commercial use, but found no interest, presumabiy due to the access difficulties and size of the parcel. The City-owned property, when combined with the four residential properties on Eastwood Road, would become a viable commercial site with its frontage along the Highway 10 and County Road I, given the premium placed on visibility by high volumes of traffic and the availability of access from arterial roadways. 4. Et%ct on Ciiy's Taz Base. The current taxes generated by the four single-family residential parcels is less than $6,000 annually. The City-owned parcel generates no tax revenue as it is public land. Using data provided by the developer, the taxes expected to be generated by the proposed Walgreens would be substantially higher--$66,000 annually. When looking at the overall picture, the City has a very limited amount of land in commercial zoning or commercial uses (3.9% in 1990), and an extensive amount of land in single family residential (45.1% in 1990), One possible goal of land use planning is to balance the types of land uses to create a sustainable economy and a reasonable level of taxes for services. Commercial uses pay more property taxes than do single family residential developments. Attached to this report are the goals and policies regarding commercial development within the City. 5. Compatibility of Uses; Protection of Residential Neighborhoods. The placement of different uses adjacent to one another may cause impacts and incompatibilities. Commercial uses are often seen as creating compatibility problems for adjacent residential neighborhoods. The applicant has made some changes to the initial design to address the concerns expressed by nearby residents about buffering and the impact of the proposed use on the single family homes east of the property, The Comprehensive Plan is one of the fundamental policy docurnents used by cities to envision their desired future. The Comprehensive Plan is a series of choices, and these choices have social, -�r i� ;z;..�.��.' _ , ;=' - _� --- '-=� --- - - -- --�-- �- �=�- �— Planning Commission RepoR TOLD Development Co. Case # 507-97 January 14, 1998 Page 4 economic and environmental consequences. In the area of land use, the plan is often used to balance community desires and the marketplace. The marketplace, for the most part, initiates, finances and constructs development of homes, businesses, entertainment and leisure uses. Cities can shape the character of their communities if they translate the vision in the Comprehensive Plan into development regulations, which then molds what happens in the marketplace. The marketplace, however, keeps moving and continues to bring ideas to communities which may not have been anticipated by the plan or which differ from the plan. Plans need to be revisited and updated to keep pace as circumstances change or as opportunities arise. This request is coming from the marketplace and presents opportunities and consequences. The Planning Commission and City Council, after hearing testimony from citizens, the applicant and staff, must judge whether this new idea works for Mounds View. B. Rezoning Request Dis�ussion of Re�uest: As stated above, the Planning Commission shall consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed rezoning. The criteria are as follows: 1. Relationship to the Corr�prehensive Plan. The proposal is inconsistent with the �current Comprehensive Plan designation for this site. Minnesota Statutes require that a proposed rezoning be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. If the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is approved, the proposal would be consistent. 2. Surrounding Area. The subject properties form an irregularly shaped parcel bounded Highway 10 to the west and County Road I to the south. There is an extensive, existing single family residential neighborhood to the east and an approved ten-unit townhome development to the northwest to compliment the existing apartment buildings. South of the site is a fast-food restaurant and Moundsview Square Shopping Center. Across the highway is a SuperAmerica and Burger King. In the proposed plans, the residential areas to the east and the north would be buffered from the development by a wide expanse of greenspace, berming and/or tree cover. At both of the neighborhood meetings, there was discussion about whether property values would decrease in the adjacent neighborhood as a result of this project. While there is no evidence to suggest that property values will decrease as a result of this project, neither is there evidence to suggest an increase in value. The impact may not be financial but quality of life or "feel". The developer has offered to deed additional land to those properties abutting the site on Greenwood Drive as a means to mitigate any perceived or real impact to property values or to establish a greenspace easement. 3. The demonstrated need for such use. The applicant's client--Walgreens--has done considerable research with regard to market conditions and long term feasibility for this particular site in Mounds View and feels there to be a strong need and economic viability for a store at this location. Residents in the adjacent neighborhood have expressed concerns over what will happen if Walgreens fails and the building is left vacant. Staffunderstands that TOLD Development _ � � :: _ . , _ .; � . - --___ __� � __, W� _--- --- - --_ .--__._.____ �_� �d _.�.:.�._ . '_�, � _._ _ - . __. . - -- - -- ._. r _ _ _�. Planning Commission Report TOLD Development Co. Case # 507-97 January 14, 1998 Page 5 Company will be the owner of the site, from whom Walgreens has entered into a twenty-year lease contract. However, in the event the use changes, covenants have been, or will be attached to the city-owned parcel prohibiting certain types of uses. 4. Drainag� Residents west of the subject property have expressed concerns that this development will increase existing problems with flooding in their backyards. Addressing this possibility, the developer pointed out that there should be less stormwater run-off onto adjoining properties after the development than there is now as a result of regrading the site to divert all n.in-off to on-site storage ponds. The City engineer will review the grading and drainage to ensure that this will be the case. Rice Creek Watershed District will also review the plans and will need to issue a pernut. 5. Tra, f'f'fic and Acces� Because of the site's location at the corner of the City's highest volume intersection, the tra�c impacts of this use will be examined closely. The applicant is proposing a full access on County Road I and a right-in right-out onto Highway 10. In addition, Eastwood Road is proposed to be closed, which raised considerable concern at the neighborhood meetings from the residents living on Greenwood Drive. The developer has provided a traffic study prepared by Benshoof & Associates to investigate this and other traffic impacts of the development. Currently, access to Eastwood Road from Highway 10 or eastbound� County Road I is restricted, diverting many vehicles onto Crreenwood Drive. According to the analysis, the closing of Eastwood Road would redistribute 330 vehicles in a 24-hour period onto adjacent neighborhood streets. Greenwood Drive is shown to increase from 510 vehicles a day to 664 vehicles a day. With the traffic to be generated by the proposed Walgreens, there would be an additional 50 vehicle trips, raising the total daily volume to an expected 714 vehicle trips per day, which represents a 40 percent increase. Both MnDOT and Ramsey County traffic engineers will need to approve the proposed access points. 6. Public Safety. Mounds View Police Chief Tim Ramacher and his staffhave reviewed the proposed plan. Chief Ramacher has noted that any time vacant land is developed, there will be an increase in police activity because there will be more people activity and cars on the site. Accidents, theft, vandalism and disorderly conduct are examples of the type of incidents which may occur. Because of the buffers provided around the development, he would expect these problems to be confined to the site and he does not expect the surrounding area to be adversely affected. The Fire Marshal for the Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds View Fire Department has reviewed the plans and has responded that the proposed plan for this development does not present any areas of concern. The City will require a cul-de-sac radius of 50 feet, which the Fire Marshal finds acceptable for fire truck maneuverability. 7. Economic Benefits. As mentioned earlier in this report, the taxes currently generated by the subject properties amounts to less than $6,000 annually. With the development as proposed, ta�c revenue is expected to increase to $66,000. The number of jobs created by this development, jobs potentially filled by Mounds View residents, is expected to be about 35 positions, more than half of which would be full-time positions. The wages will be competitive for the marketplace. . ,. �._,� � . . _ . . i : . � � .. _ , -- --- - - � _ --:-' - �-.� – ---- ------ —._. - - -� �<- Planning Commission Report TOLD Development Co. Case # 507-97 January 14, 1998 Page 6 New commercial growth creates a host of short and long term economic impacts to the community and region as a whole. These impacts go beyond the direct tax benefits and job creation, and is referred to as the multiplier or ripple effect. When a business expands or a new business comes into the community, it creates additional jobs throughout the area's economy. Ti�e multiplier for a retail business such as Walgreens is 1.4. (These numbers are estimates to be used only as guidelines in measuring the economic impact to a region from industry growth. They are developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce.) Conclusioans: The following represents sta.ff's assessment of the advantages and disadvantages from this development proposal. Advantages: ■ The proposal is designed in a manner which provides protection and buffering for the surrounding residential neighborhoods ■ The proposal brings a national retailer into Mounds View � ■ Walgreens will give Mounds View residents an added choice for their prescription needs and will promote competitive pricing ■ Walgreens is expected to draw a majority of its customers from within the City ■ It will strengthen the City's tax base and generate revenue ■ The store will create up to 35 jobs, many of which will be filled by Mounds View residents ■ The use will alleviate drainage problems in the area ■ Takes advantage of an opportunity being presented by the marketplace ■ Eastwood Road residents south of Hillview Road would live on a cul-de-sac with no through traffic ■ The proposal redevelops a site for which the City paid $125,000 and returns it to the tax base Disadvantages: ■ The proposal involves the removal of four single-family houses ■ Traffic counts on Greenwood Drive are expected to increase by 40 percent ■ The development of the site may increase the number of accidents at this busy intersection ■ Homes on Greenwood that now back up to other homes would back up to a commercial business The community, in previous public meetings, has voiced opposition to the addition of any more rental housing within Mounds View. _ Many question the appropriateness of locating any type of housing along Highway 10--rental or otherwise. The City, after purchasing the corner property, attempted to market the site to commercial developers, but found little interest due to the access difficulties and relatively small area. Combining the City lot with the four single-family homes has opened the door to commercial development. Resident concern is understandable, however, ' 6. _ .._'- : ' _ "- � �..:>>. " ..� . �- ... _ . -. .. . . . .,: _ _ � —. , _ "___._— _. " _ 1 _ . _ . . _ . . .. ". �e-� Y-.��sc.�._i��.�_.�I I , ' :. . I .� _ . � � . , . ._. .:� �: I Planning Commission Report TOLD Development Co. Case # 507-97 January 14, 1998 Page 7 � because once the door is opened, where will the commercial encroachment end? The community, through the Planning Commission and City Council, must decide what its goals are for these propezties and how the current proposal fits into the bigger picture. Recommendation: Continue to a future meeting the discussion for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715 - 7761 Eastwood Road and provide direction to staff and the developer if additional information is required. Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4, 5, 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 Planning Application Location Map Traffic Analysis, dated 1/27/98 Applicant's Written Statement Letter from Applicant, dated 1/15/98 Letter from Margaret Hylton, 7731 Crreenwood Drive Letter from Janet Wilcox, 7815 Eastwood Road Comprehensive Plan map, Planning District 6 Site Plan, 8'/2 x 11 reduced Site Plan, full Size (Separate Attachment) Preliminary Plat, full size (Separate Attachment) N:�DATA\GROUPS\CONIDEV�DEVCASES\507-9'7�507-97.PC 1 FILE No. 959 42i13 '98 11�40 ID�TOLD DEVELOP�ENT 612 424 7574 PAGE 2 � �.a, -arl�ty lY� 14 �� $ ��' 612 d32 9564 p.�ie8 BENSHOQF & ASSO�IATE�, �NC. -- 7RaNSPOR'rATiON ENatNEERS AND PLqNNE�S �301 OHMS LqNE, SUI7'E SOp / EDINq. MN Sb�3g /�81� 8'i2-98b8 / F�.X (612)1l32-8664 Febn�ry Y2, 1998 97-89 qEFEA 7o FIIE: MEM08�ANDUM 70: Robert Cunrsis�70LD Devalopment Ca. FROM: 7ames A. Bensho�f � M'ic1�l �I.. Chen'� RP: �PPlemontat T�'ic M�ly,w fcr Wal�rmt� 5x��re in Ciry of Mout� I � PURP�S$ AND�ACYCGR0�T11Ib Ai ra4uestea by;he TOLD Dw+alopment Co�p�n}►, thi� m�ota�dum is a eppF!�cnent t� otu ori�inel �anuaty 27, 1948, repat Tius eupplcmentaJ et�tly�is addross�s iwa issuea ariaiag &om the Febt�uary 4� 2998, Ci�tY Cau�scil me+atir�g in Mow�ds View. The fust issue taacerns the arper.-ted haffic volume at ehe intera�ttion of fircarswood nrive and I3i11view Rosd follow►irag ccmpietion af the Walgroena dovoIopm�nt. T�e aecond isaaa concern� tJte intvrsectiou ap�cing oa Couaty Road I betw�eeu t� 1�VaJ�recns acce9a, the Mcunds View xiwppin� centcr accass and tho Crtaviwood Drive intersectioa 7`RAFF�C ANALYSYS +� �� tt - r �31u: -_.. � . le ..�.� _- ►♦ �'. � • • i�/ tll�at'S�lOII 38 �i89�jj1 �pJ1�]j� ��i � 4-Waj► � y0 YC�11Ci8i Ofl #� mu�i frrst stap before proce�ding through the ir�t�ecpon aPP�oaches We conducted a p.m. pe�1c ho�v t�$'ic oount at tt� intet�e�tiaa ou Feb ?he pe�c hour was det�ninad to be 4;30 tia 5:�0 m. F' �� l 1. 144$, P� �our traffic volurue� at this i p' � 1 ehow� tha axl�dng p.m. aevelopmeAe voluc� whm tho w�Ate�ctiaA and ccmper;so.n to the exp� �, trip diwibution for the Wo1 �� a�e ia oompletod. Tbs RiP S��ation aad rep�rt. gerna de+vdopm�ps ara d�ailad in the J�auary 27, 1998, r�l 0 FILE No. 959 02i13 '98 11�40 ID�TOLD DEVELOPMENT � �u ac i�� ! /% l� ��QF 8 FiS�SOC. 9/�/0 � 67J67f0 ---.�r f3/i7/+4 � M T�� DEVEL�PMENT �� w� _ k..�. r � + � r— � t +�� *• .- r 612 420 7574 PAGE 3 612 832 956a P.03�08 . �r i� 1 �uv�Ew�o. 1�.� 7�teo � --- 58/84�// F6 � 11'IIO y �r ��_ -�- c-�� . � �. • ♦ • r •t --,� 5 �, . � ♦ � � T�C� Y313 w� ,�'�s°�' oEy��c.�o�rr r �i pM �'E�1K HOUA �►�c vo�u��s aT 1NTE�4SPCT10N OF '�V-��1 RGAD AND aR�ENW��D OAIVE FILE No. 959 02i13 '98 11�41 ID�TOLD DEVELOPMENT 612 424 7574 PAGE 4 ti,.or-R.n.,r X Fi53oC. �t. RD� C�ARia$bifi 3 612 832 9554 P.02iO3 Fabniary 1Z, 199� The tabto balow �marizes t�e vehiclo movea� ofHillview Rvsd aad G�t+o� �ts for esch �tPProsa6 to Lhe Jateta�ion �+�+'ood Driva p.M. Pe�k Ho�ur Volumea �� Nozth�ound C3re.awood Dr;`,e Sotrthbound C�awoad Drive 25 �tbouAd H'iilvierw �� l2 w�� Hill�riew Rr,� �3 66 v��o w�b 38 �3 87 72 cbaa je jn Vulame +I3 +I �4 T� t�c volume incra�ae at � ai dow arid v�riJt Dot i�►e a� �� a� a rea�i� otti� VVal�ens daveloprn�nt votumas �o S�ficamt impact or► paffic opar�tjon or dovelo m n8 �eanwaod brive ore Iow d� � �°�3'• '�a mci�tir�g P nnt is axpa�� , �aso ths ncrtb6oun� P.m. F� period. 'The Wat��a by 13 vehiclas and the aauthbound dep�e y �oet�wood Dnva �pProarh votume I�i]tvi�w Road. by tiv� vehicle�. °� �eenwood Dri�e, south of less tban one wr av T� �al of 18 vchicle triP� ngre�ents an a davalopmertt will �ve �� minut� indicatittg the a�i�i�l im �c# �:e of �t'eeuwood Arive. p � �Q �'�� wood Drivo � claaai6ed �s � ]ucal taad i9 typ�utl fbr loc�t e�reets �Y r�nd tbe voh�o of t�$3a on tlui �ypQ of Frara th� 7aauary 27, I g9� ��° +�ddidon of t6e jya�aenA dev�opment, i� S I O vebicIo trips, and tj� w� �Q �� :d daily tr�&c on {�rcacnwood Driv� Br+Aer� dav�ebpmeat wi11 iacr�e thi� yo[ume to 7I4 �g� �° �P�od 714 ve�;cJe trip� witl �� we11 balaw t!b � ppp . ��hOld rstabliahed by ��li� �ndl tbr local stroets , daily vahicle ttip 1'ho propose� sp�� of the Wa1� �; on �� o T.H, 10 �aa aad 1S0 �� Road Y is approxim�telY 200 °GC� on Counh► Ra�d I � weat of the Mound� View e�Cppjn$ �PPro�mately 13o f�et west of �� j �0�'� �hoppi�'a8 eas�tcr acoese is � � waJ�ree� arce�: �� I �'"�Y wili not pPi�� oenter eacce�ed� app�ieable � T.Ii 10 and the V"lew thoPP�B �teor �Y �ntcrfarerice wifh �tl�,r T.� � � ro � �&�os � ta the �, wuds FILE No. 959 02i13 '98 11�41 ID�TOLD DEVELOPMENT 1 u7-AJ-17�GY 11 � �1 ��1Qf� 8 ASSDC, X'L'. Robat Gtirtnin8iu�m coxccusroxs 4 612 420 7574 b12 832 956q PAGE 5 P-03i83 February lZ, I998 1'ho Wa�greer� developmenc ia not e�o�d to � , +�ty of thc �T'illview R�� •��Y �p�ct the apex�on aAd developmeat is expectsd ta add 18 �awood arive iMeroectlon. Ihe Vii�� hour, whlch ia leas lrehlcle Vipa to Graeriwood Drive � or� vehicle evmy ��tes. Tho d�8 �Q p"m' pea1� cdmirrue to provide a high tevel of safary g� �icienr �'A� 4waY atop wili Walgreena dovelcpment. �P�tY w[t'h tbe propo� Tbe propnsed W�1�reans acCeB� ia rwt Lhe operatfon cf Courity Road I becauio ��ed to hivo a ug�� impact on io th� Mounds Vav� Sho °p�8 beiwcc.� this drivcw�Y aa d the acce�� tcco�s �paciAg standerds. pA�nB Ce�r is 2S8 fee� which fi�IIy cumpliea with pez�i�e� � � T�TAI. P _ 03 FILE No. 954 02i13 '98 10:36 ID�TOLD DEVELOP�ENT 612 420 7574 PAGE 2 FEB-12-199f� 17�15 i�, ..�� _ ., TRA�'FIC CIRCLES A StaEe 2 Tool This dcvice is a cIrcle in the middla cf cwo iatersecting rcutos. a7ircct straighc-thrcugh movcmants are obstructcd by dhe rxntra! island� causing tcai�c to movo around the circln ir► a one-way pattern. Approaches to thd interscction area ar� nocma!(y controlted by ""�Lt3" si�ns. Theic prirnary pucpose is to s(ow high-spccd traf'fic. They s��so reducn the number of reported aeeideats. Trzffic circles are most effective when �c�struCted in x serits. Note: City of Seattle haa detailed desigrs tnteri� dapending an tha streae width and curb return radii, � � �; �� ;� � '�+ -- � �- S �� ■ � . CURH EXTEI�ISIONS (Entry, �xit, Mid-�lock) A Stage Z �oaI Curb cxtensions nac7ow the street by widening the sidewalk ar►d/or tho 1au�dscaped park3ng strip. They are used to mako podest�an c�ossings rasier and tQ provide a visua! narrawing �slang the soadway that helps inaeasa ,drivec iwareriess- They cart bc iastalled eithet it Intersections or mid-bIoc1�, � w.o..��.�.. z 612 832 9564 P.e5�68 1• A�tachment 1 page 5 of 11 � t f ,` i��+ � �,�P � � � �c�n� � �:: '!.�. � ccrna �.7.TSNI9�ONS �� FILE No. 954 02i13 '98 10:36 ID�TOLD DEVELOPMENT 612 420 7574 FEB-12-2998 17�16 BENSHf�OF & ASSOC. 612 832 95E�4 P.0?�C�B FORCED-TY1RN ISLANDS, BARItIERS, C�LLZATI4N A Stage 2 Tool 'I?►�s tecluuque ptimarily involves the util"tzation of tra�c isl.ar�ds to restrlct sp�Gfic traffic movements at an intet�s�tion. The basic purpos� of forccd-turn channelizatioa is to discourage the u�e o�a particular route or street segment by throug,h traffic. �� l r , �' � M =� � a� ♦ .:�� s:� '=�= � �.� '�:., . �� ,1 � 1� �Ir: ti ' . 7 : � �. MID-BLOCK 5LOW POINTS, CHICANES .� Stage Z Tool Serpeatinc aub protn,sions offset fram each athor in mid-block locatiotis that narr�w the width of the raadw�y and hclp reducc traffic speeds and improve safety. Twa�w6 � siow �t � � � —agQ�II. ��a�ma� �� a-- ---s .f� Tkroa�'i.Y . PAGE 3 i--- � FILE No. 954 02i13 '98 10�36 ID�TOLD DEVELOPf1ENT FEB-12-19�H 1?�16 HEN��F $ ASSOC. , , SPE�D i�UMPS (about 2�_67" s I2'} A Stage Z 'TooI . Speed hump� are wa.vad-shaped p�ved h�amps in the screet. Thc hdghc of che s�eed hurnQ determines how fasc ic may bo navigated withaut causing discdmfort to tha driver or damaga to the vehicta Discomfort increa5r.s �s spced over tha hump ineroa,ses, i'yp,r„a(�y� speed �umps are plaetd ia a serie§ rath�r than singulariy. Note: Speed humps ean be tha most cost- effactiva traffic-ca,lming msasure for rcducing spseds an existir�g rosidential streets. Whilc they oftea generate coasiderablc opposition fram drivers, public safety sgeacies, and s�rvicc agencies� speCd hump5 hava repeated(y bten shown to be effective in reducing travel speeds by S to 10 �np}, pn residtntiat scrects, and they ar 'ztively incxpensive to instal! and maintain. Z't�ere is same evidence that che aver-t,cse of �peed humps can lead to negatavc reactions, ' �specialty ftom inju�ed pers�ns btirtg ' trznspoRed, otc. ' SPEED TABLES • (3-4" z Z2') ' A Stage Z Tool ' Speed humpa with a long ilat sectian, o8en used i, as ct0�swvalks, 612 420 7574 PAGE 4 612 832 9564 P•08i08 Attachment 1 Page S af I� auvP �, � �� , , , --__--°� -� � °''----�—_ _ -c� . � �,..�� r�T�a ■� �` ��\\\ Q 4 1� ��r� �� K ��y b j---,�� d 'I�l 1 I I t i�� _._! � • �MUar� 0 d�. �� . �� 55yDa s�rw' ••• �-GI�I� .r:o� . ..�.-�. /�Ott 1 yr �F �� f rf� 0 T�TAL P.RA � .� � February 13, 1998 A�s. �im Ericson 3i35 VAbNAIS CEMER DRIVE 2'00 SEN CEN7Efl, ST, PAIJL, MN SS i 10 612 490-2000 800 325-2055 ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERlNG • EM/IRONMENTAL • TRANSPOATATION RE: Mouz�ds View, Minnesoca � VValgxeen's TO�.D Developcneat SEH No. A-MOUND98d5.00 CommuniCy Developnoent De�artment City of Mounds "Vie�w 2401 Highway 10 Mounds view, MN 55112-1499 Dear Mr. Ericson: We have reviewed the site glan and the January 27, 1998 tr�c study by Benshoof �c Associates, Inc. (Benshoo fl foz' the W'algreen's progosed at County Road I and E�stwood Drive. Trip Generat�on To deiermine ttae trips the Walgreen's would generate in the P.�I. Peak Hour, the r��r�s�oci report cites a tri�p generation rate of 9.18. Our review show thxs to �be the zat� for the "P.M. Peak Hour of Generato�". It is more appmpriate to use the rate for the "Peak Hour o;f AdjacenC Street Traffic One Between 4 and 6 p.m" which is 14.�Q. (Trip generation rates are obtained from the 6th ed'atian of ',Crip Gene�ration published by the �nstitute of TransportaLion Engineers.) The concein is that the p.m. peak hour of the generator may be at a different time o� the day than true p.m. peak period (generally somewhere between 4 p,m. and 6 p.m.). An example would be a fast �ood restaurant The peak hou�r for a fast food restaurant is generally over the lunch hour. Even though a fast food restaurant can generate more traffic at noon than in the late afternaon, we usually evaluate the impact to the surrounding roadway based on thc late afternoon oraffic. Thiis is because u�c overall is )nigher on the surz�ounding road�vays in the late afternoon (rush hour) than it is a� noon. . Using the 10.40 rate, the trip generation for the Walgreen's is estimated at 145 trip ends in the g.zn. peak hour. This is slightly highe�r ihan the 129 trip ends estamated in the Benshoof report. Trip Distribution and Qssignrnent With the proximity of the site to T.H. 10, it is expected that there 'will be some "pass by" traffic. Pass by traffic is that tr�c whish is a�'eady usiz�g the roadway systezn and di'vert to use the drugstore. '�'he 45 percent pass by rate used in tt�e Benshoof repc�rt is high and pass bry rate of 20 percent seems more reasonable fox this type of land use. A chan.ge in the pass by assumption affccts the various turni.ng moveme�nts. The impact of these Changes are noted under the capacity SHORT ELLlO7T NENDRICKSON INC. MINNFJIPOLlS, MN ST CLOUO, MN GHIPPEWA FALLS, Wl MADISON, WI LAKF COUNTY, !N EUUAL OPPORTUIVITY EM�'LOYER Mr. Jim Ericson Februsry �3, i998 Page 2 analysis section. Of the 145 trip ends ge�eraced by �Walgreen's, we calculate that 29 will be pass by trips and the remaining 116 will be new trips. In z��viewing the distributioz� and assignment of the newiy generated tra�c, we noted a error on the bottom portion of Figure 3 of khe repart. At the T.�. 10 access af Walgreen's, the westbonnd right turn movement is sho�wn as 144. This number should be 14. Level of Service With tkze chaage in the trip generation rate and the pass by percentage, the Walgreen's developanent is ex�ected to inc�ease thc volume through the intezsection of T.H. 10 and County Road I by five vehicles per cycle (oz� average) durzng the p.m. peak hour. This zs slighdy higher thac� ttle three vehicles per hour stated in the $enshoof re�ort. The net result is that ihere is a slight increase xn delay fior sozne of the movenaents and the interseciion aw whole but xt does not change the overall 1��; �;l of service (L05), As stated in the Benshoof report, the intersection wi11 operate ae an overcap��iry level (LOS F) and the addittiona�l traffic is not expected to have a signifiea.nt iznpact on the o��<sration of the inrersection. To vez�fy the imp�ied assumptior� that develogzneat was not dri�ing the overcapacity situation at the intersection, we reviewed the level of service at Che intersectio� with 1997 background traffc oniy, 1998 batkgzound �c only and X999 background uaffie using an annual growthrate of 2.5 �ercent. This ana��sis showed that the intersection would begin to opezate at an overcapacity level in 1999 even without derrelopment due to the laz'ge northbound thxough movenaent on T.I�_ 10. A summazy of this a.nalysis is attached. We reviewed the pot�ntial o� adding capaciry (lanes� to tl�e County Road I approa�hes of the intersection. Adding lanes at these approaches wquld not sign�ficantly improve [he level of service at the inte�section. As noted in the Benshoof report, the T:H. 118/610 connector should help to �.11eviate congestion at this intersection. We estimated that a 10 percent reduction im the T.H. 10 through traffic would bri�ng the intersection out o�F an overcapaeiry situatiozi. We also reviewed the storage capacity for the westbound Counry I approach. 'We estimate that 200 feet o� stora.ge for queued vehicles is needed. Since the Walgreen's access on Counry Road I is located app�oximately 200 feet east of r1�e T.H. 10 i�ntersection, chere may be a few cycles in the p.m. peak hour where the queue backs up to but not th�ough thc Walgreen's access. Site Plan Review We have reviewed the site plaa and noted a few items: A place for trash collection is not shown and could not be evaluated. The Coun�y Road I access to the site sho�vs the two lanes for outbound traffic as one through and one share left-turn and through lane. The lanes for the ""I"' ic�tersection should be designated as one left turn only lanc and one right turn only aane. �:00�1 Si'�C f1CT7 fiR6 7TQ Vi7.7 4T'pT T?T.T 4R/PT/7n Mz�. Jim Ericson February 13, 1998 Page 3 As noted in the Benshoa� report, a pedestzian connectioz� between the neighborhood and 'Walgreen's should be added to the p�an. The plans indicate that the drive u� windows lane closest to the buildzng could accommodate four to five vehicles and the outer lane could accommodate five to six vehicles. Since it is unlikely that there would be more thsn two to three vehicles at any one time, tl�e stacking space is adequate. Tf you have any question regarding this iu�ormation, please call me at 490-2047. Sincerel�r, Short Elliott �e rickso�n Inc. � �� Cynthia S. Drake '�'ransportation �nginPer sah . Enclosure � c: Glen Van Vtiarme�r, SE%T Steve Cam�phell, SBH a:�olrecsv�avrMOU m�sos�c�ex�soN.�, � � l.EY�L OF SERViCE SUMMARY FOR WALGREEN'S Mo�ds Viewo MN 02/'13�98 S�N - csd ' YOLUMES Badcgrvund Volumes Development at Si(ver lake Drive Wa(greens Devlelopment UNSIGNALiZED County Road i and Ea�trvood Drive SB R Lave! of Setvice County Roaa! I actd Watgreen's Main Acces� 5B t Leve1 of Ser�+ice S� R Level of �ecvice EB L Level of S�tYice TH 10 Watgreen's Rlyht INRlght-0ut Access � WB R Level of Service SIGNALIZED TH '�0 and Cour�ty RoaQ 6 G�de Lertgth . Ir�te�ction Level of Service Dela ' Movements EB l.evel of Service Delay WB Levei of Service Delay NB � Level of Service Delay NB T Level of Service Delay Se L Lev�ll of Sen�ice Delay 1997 1998 199� 1999 1999 no no no YES YES no no no na YES A ,� A A Na Ma Na Na Na C nl$ n/a p!a Na A Na Na Na n/a A Na Na Na Na C 157 ° 157 ' 157 ' 157 ' 157 ' D E F F � 21.8 ' 49.1 " 60.4 ' 68.0 " 78.3 ` E E E E E 54.4 " 55.0 ' 56.3 ' S7.6 " 55.6 ' E E E E E d6.9' 47.2' a7.4 ° 47.5' S1.6" E E E E ' E 52.1 ' 52.8 ° 55.4 ' 51.7 ' 54.3 ° D F F � F 28.5' 66.9" 87.3' 101.6' 121.3' E E E E E 56.7 ' S5.6 ' S6.8 " 59.9 ' S8.A ' 1 �.- �� --- . i. I Meeting Date: : , . . ., . . . _ . . ._.. ._ . I _ _ E��-'-'- -- -- ' -' -=- - -. _ REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Staff Report by: Planning Case No.: Applicant: February 18, 1998 Steve Dorgan, Housing Inspector 513-98 Preferred Builders, Inc. Request: The applicant is requesting ::�. 7 foot Variance to the required 30 foot building setback from a. public right-of-way along Ardan Avenue for the construction of a new single-family home at 8265 Spring Lake Road. Locatione PIN No. Zoning/Land Use: 8265 Spring Lake Road 06-30-23-23-0003 R-1- Single Family Residential LD - Low Density Residential Attachments: Planning Application Location Map Hardship Statement Encroachment Map Building Plan Lot Survey of Previous Home Planning Commission Resolution # 532-98 � Applicable Regulations: Section 1104.01, Subd. 3., requires a 30 foot building setback when abutting a public street. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. The following criteria are individually addressed in Planning Commission Resolution 532-98: a. Exceptional or eYtraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. c5�- -� ? _�� 1C --- ..: � _"_ ' � _ _ _ - . . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ ' _ _ -_ .r..,.�c I�A ..._-� :- - :. .:.' . , . _ _ _ II ___�.__. '� ____—_ .e.ad� � .__.�__—__" L - . .. ' - = � ...� ��.�_ � c_ Y .._ J.. . v _. _ . . � ._`..'�� . . .. _. : .., "'__'_�" "" ____ _' __ .. � .. . . - _.. .. , __ - • � _ - � .; Planning Case No. 513-98 8265 Spring Lake Road February 18, 1998 Page 2 That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of tliis Title or to other property in the same zone. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such restrictions and conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reciuce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. Background: In 1996, the Economic Development Authority (EDA) acquired the proposed lot through the Housing Replacement Program (HRP). The existing building was then razed and the lot cleared. The property is located on a corner having dimensions of 80' x 218'. According to City Code, a 100' frontage is required for a corner lot in the R-1 Zoning District. In September of 1996, at the time the lot was owned by the EDA, the Planning Commission granted a 20 foot variance to the 100 foot lot width requirement for a corner lot to recognize the e:�isting 80 foot lot width. On January 30, 1998, the EDA sold the proposed lot to Preferred Builders, Inc. As part of the purchase agreement, Preferred Builders is required to build a minimum of a 3 bedroom 2 bath home with a two car garage. The home the applicant is proposing meets all site criteria as outlined in the purchase agreement with the EDA. However, the home is 7 feet wider than the ma�cimum building width allowed by Ciiy Code for the proposed lot. Hardship: The applicant indicates that a hardship exists because a standard corner lot would be at least 100 feet in width and would accommodate the proposed home. The proposed home is 52 feet wide with a three cax garage. The applicant claims that the current market demands homes with a tlu-ee car garage. Because the lot is only 80 feet in width and located on a corner with 30 foot setbacks along each public road, the proposed home would need to encroach approximately 7 feet into the building setback of the road right-of-way along Ardan Avenue. :. � _ _3, . - _-- _ L_ ,��, . ' -� - -��'_ " "�_��:�c ""'_ -.. . .�.�_ . . .._.._ _' �__' �_ z.. _... ._. .�_�____ _ .. Planning Case No. 513-98 8265 Spring Lake Road February 18, 1998 , Page 3 Analysis: According to City Code Section 1104.01, Subd. 3., a 30 foot building setback is required along all public streets for lots located in the R-1 zoning districts of the city. The applicant is requesting an additional7 feet to build the proposed home. The lot is 80 feet in width and is located on a corner which creates some site constraints. The home previously located on the lot was 19.4 feet from the public road right-of-way along Ardan Avenue (see attached lot survey). The proposed home would be 23.1 feet from Ardan Avenue. Orienting the home to Ardan Avenue would not alleviate the variance request for the proposed home and would most likely require an additional variance. An orientation of the home to Spiing Lake Road would allow for a home with a maximum width of 45 feet. Therefore, the construction of a single family home with a two car garage would be accommodated on the proposed lot without the need for a variance. The proposed variance fails to meet hardship criteria for granting a variance as outlined in Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 of the City Code. The proposed lot will support the constzuction o� a 3 bedroom, 2 bath single family home with a 2 car garage as required in the EDA's Housing Replacement Program site criteria. The specified site criteria is a minimum requi.rement of the purchase agreement the applicant has with the EDA for the proposed property. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 532-98 denying a variance request by Preferred Builders, Inc. to allow a 7 foot variance from the required 30 foot building setback from a public: right-of-way along Ardan Avenue for the property located at 8265 Spring Lake Road. Steve Dorgan Housing Inspector 717-4023 N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\� 13-98\513-98PC.RPT ,. � . �a�w .�..; . y,. , . :,,,,• i:-.'r ��:��•,o�.t :I, ��J ::,v:.: 1..; ) � \J::'..:J:'�• A o- �+•P L, jn,�J,. , '8n'ci . P:1ttllt��y � � i - �--- COMNIUM'I-y DEVELOPIYLENT DEPARTI�LEN'T DEVELOPNIENT APPLICATI01� ' 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View 1bIlV� 55112 612-717-=�020 612-784-3462 - FA.X Please Type or Print Information - ComQiete Both Sidea of This Form � — - -- - -- _ ------ �pplicaat Information � n� Name ofApplicant il' -P T c°�/ G�� /��'.S- �G7L . i . T� ephone _�'� �'�� P.ddress � �� a'� �s'r'`J � � .. - . , _ `� _ �� 7�i- ��-�/ . . - -- - _ . ��,�-,�9 �,s�.c% --��-�-.r -- � .. _ _... _ v, • �� .... . . • - - , - � -� � • - -- _._._..�.�_ _. � �Z .. ,- - -- .`.... . ...._. __ �.__. -� ---�•— - _ - ------�'�-- -----_�_r__. ` —�_._. �.�.--------!`a__ _��..._.._-- -- ... --_._ ._ ------------- --_ ---- ------ ----- -- ------� --- ----. ____.�._ Interest in property (checic appropriate box) - � Owner of ProPerry _ . - - - - -� . _ ...__-Con�act for Deed Owner - - -----___._----.- -- o Lrssee, Operator, Manager � � Other (e,�cplain) . . - _ - -- - -- -- p'�T�ent to Purchase __ �': -. . : � _' :. . Applicanis mu�t provide evidence of interest in propecty at the time of ap�lication, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission ftom the owner giving coosent to the filing of this application. Tiie properiy owner must 9ign this application for it to be accepted. ,___ _ � ----._ _.__ _ _. . _. . \ -- -- __ ..-. - Property Descriphoti/proposal . Address or General Loeation .-,.._ .. .. � - �. -- �_ : � _ ; _ �� __ .�_ f ' �Legal Description � . �. �� `�` � � ` -- �• Propercy Iden�hfication # (P1N #) _,.•,�� # of Acres _____ _ _ .�_.,_ �� T�� , _�. ,� .�. �`� .. ,i—�--.n '�, „ -------- — ' �Gu��O.r U� � ;i-i", " ___ . -.., . l��J(' . '" ��. g CurrentZoninS.� �''',`_� _ �_'` `•-`--'�..`'F-_,; `��_..---.�_.__...-:�•. ------ -`---- - � �_ J TypeofA , . _ . - - � . �_ _ '__ ' - ,.-., . . _ ..._.. . .._ . � '. .�� : PPlicadon � _ _ ` ` - � ' - -- --� _ _- -- - ---- -==--�- c �----- Q � Comprehensive Plan Amendmeut �TZ50 � Rezoning - 5250/acre; min �250 max S I�00 o Major Subdivision 5250 +$250 deposit* � Minor Subdivision �200_ Q Planned Unit Deveiopme:it (pUD) � Refer to rezoning fees o PUD Amendme�t . �350 a Conditiona! Use Permic � V��Ce. . R-1, R-2 �75; all others �ZSO ❑ . --..._ _ __----- -- - - R-(, R-2 �75; all others SZ50 � ._ ... - - CodeAppeal -- - . .--SI00 _ . � ' a� Develop Revicw/Site P(an " � " - � Wedand Alterauon Permic -- �. --- --- � 12�/acre; min S I2S max �7�0 � Wedand Bui�er Permit R-1. R-2 � 1�0; alI others $Z00 R- l, R-2 $ZS; all others � 100 � o Floodplain Permit $Z00 o Other _ _ - --- - *Deposies shall be paid to covec ail costs of public notices, mateciais and a-ta�or consuItan[ time spenc in the revie�v research or preparation ot mateaials associatc� �vith this aoplie:ation. The applican[ shall be responsib(e for all reasonablz incurred coscs in excess of the ini[ial deposie amounc Anv portion oi'che deposit not spent or encumbered shall be retiinded to the applicant within �turty (;p) days atier consideratzon of th� spplicaaon is campieted. Ptease complete the reverse side of thu �pp�ication. i �ely of l�founds View, i�1N _ 7�velo ment A lication P3oe' �t Use of Pmperty Undeveloped/Vacant : � Duple:c/I'wo Family Dwelling Business/Commercial Establishment II ' Other (explain) P.aQaty Class�cation __ ❑ I3mr�ption o Pmposa�---_ � � ��n� � Single Family Dwellirag o Multi-family Dwe(ling ❑ Indus�ial Establishment Abs�act _.• -- � --` - - � -- - _ �.. .. - Torrens " � ' . _ --- - - -- - -- � . _��iS2-/�� h'z-� �Lt�� O' P �� i /'� � � v1,. I/ � .,L .. �� -- - �-� n - n. . � �G � BY3�X (OUR) SIGNATLTRE ON THIS AF'PLICATION,1 HEREBY DECLA.RE T�-IAT, TO TI� BEST OF �IY -�:;:,, � K�WLEDGE. Ti-� INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE: -- � -`— Si.�atureofAppGcant . - N� of Applicant (typed/printed) 5i�ture of Property,Owi ' : �`� • - ' . _.�_ �f Property Owner � Addr�s of Own�r Phone Numbc�- of Owner -�, :�.:.:: :: . - ��1-�� . _ --/-� � � GS`!�o rh:. .` �� - . ,. ...J \ .`�� _�� ti ��_�.___L � -- ... �... . . - _ _ rL � -- \ �•--•-- - i�%%1 _ 3 .!.: � ., O� Dd l �l'l� �� . _ . *.*.,.**,.****,.�**�*******,�*********,.,.�.*�*,.*****,.***,«**,«*******�*,.****�*,�*************�*�.*****�*,.* FOR OFFICE IISE ONLY Date oI Submittai / -�� j - C� � ' . �� Date of Acceptanee �i�� : . ' -. .:_ . _ _ _- Planning C:ve No. s'13 - � 60�av Limit 120-dav (imic � Fees Paid: Account � Application: �S�O o � �� _ ��a Paric Dedication: Deposi[s: Oth�--- To+� Checic # � ... Receipt � � ��o S� 9�C� �l:1D:�'.�1\GROUPSICOMDEV�FOR,�(S�DEV,�pp.FOR ��98 f,.--• City of Mounds View � Location Map x ca � a� x m � m c .� � ��» m�� w �� oe � � °°� w p i i9� � er �!8 � � Ai ��8 I�� rr.p� � �� S �� y��t ...w Xp010oe01 ae � � �m{ � � WOICR I�m i6� � �� 9010� ICi100 71lW !R'� y � RI{0D iH a --- sael� ��e ad�w ma� °_a°�..., 39� s � � F ; -�<,� -> � €F ;: �, i',: �,_�. �� I �1 I �! s I � I _ I -;� r �� , �� {��. t I i ,' � �. ....;.. .,_ � � i I _ �,_: � _�I A1Can Avanua � - ;i �.,......� ��:::��>�::�. �uiidings r�roperties within 350' � Preferred Buil�ers � Planning Case No. 513-98 Variance (Front Yard Setback) 8265 Spring Lake Road �� ; 9ri. -?.....y f � :: c:: �Y i: c:�� r�.: �`:: � �� i , � < ; �{ � : 4 i �-�--�i` ,:i � ..� , [ I C 4 � � ! 1 ��;�.� � E ��....T.; ' I E �' �_�3 �} £_ �� tsf ? i �r�J L�� r f: } j: f y� :� , '� � �:, t : E ,� ; } s ki t ; try :: �� t :� �� --�- � 1 >f ( :: : k I{:: k r�� —kt �(� J F �:': i f .r::; � ` �.° ��.�.�� :� � � ' � jr : E. � : i E �: c: f ` S �:":� � . . . . � �, t . t'--S t _ .. N r — --�-- _ .�_.,. � — � -- --- — �. , -- _ �^_ . ' = L- — -- `. �-- t�__ __ _ : .:- °._ ;-c . : ": . _ __ __ _.. ,... . .._ . ._-. � ��- ,�yAti'.' ,r•� 1333 Osborne Road "'':'� Sj�ring Lake P�trk, MN5�432 .y'y;�'� t� � PREFERRED Ojfice: (612) 78Cr6000 Fax: (G12) 780-274G OVER A DEC.�iDE OF QUALITY CU�TOM HOMES Steve Dorgan City of vlounds View 2401 Hwy 10 Mounds View, MN 5� 112 RE: II265 Spring Lake Rd, Mounds Vew Dear Mr. Dor�an February 5, 1998 As you know we purchased the lot at 8265 Spring Lake Road from the Mounds �ew EconorrLic Development Authority on January 29, 19g�. We now find that due to the 80' width of this 1�6 the home that we have discussed with you �rill not fit on this lot. At this time we are now requesting that you grant Preferred Builders, Inc a seven foot variance. Please find enclosed a survey for our proposal and a set of the building plans. in rely G?..�� VV'illiam . Kociscak Vice President Preferred Builders, Inc. �;: _-. � � * � * 2422 Enterprfse Drlve * PlONEEA M�,do�a Helghts, MN 55120 � i.,wo suRV�roRS • avr� o+ar+m�s (612) 681-1914 FAX:881-9488 � eng neer np LAND PUNNfRS . V�NDSCAPE ARqiITECiS 625 H,9hway ,o N.�. * Blalne, MN 55434 * �C � (612) 783=1880 FAX.7�3-1883 Certifica te ot survey for: PREFER��'D B UILDE�S House Address: 8265 SprinQ La.ke �a$d (so.00 Piat) I F,,,o ,P 80.37 mea�ured �p �p� j��0�� 1, � FEB p 5 1998 �; � 3v 35 �POS�D BUILDING �VATIOIVS Lowest Floor Elev�atfon: Top of Block Elev�otlon. Garage Slab EJevotion: � m � ^_ v � a� o� 0 �m N � "O N N �.00 � � 34 I µ•� I I o PftOPOSED HOUSE �i � N i2 cA$. esr�T. N i i � 7.33 0 _�_ _ c�i 1267 a.00 — I �ro, g � � ��I a � 11.00 � 21.D0 i DRIVEIMAY 23.12 I �� m � �� O a � Eo � I 0 �� W N� q N �i � � (30) � 23.1 � 23.04-- r�,o � I 80. o0 C' D D T71T/� T A rrzr n� .�r�o, --; ThePrudenttal � Sundlal Realty N.E. Comer 1�8sr ana C�n�nl Ave. DARRYL WES7EALUND 861 HAlwlnd Rd., MPLS,MN 55432 flEALTOR 867• 11 1 1 �;— Fax:571-5105 .1� Yw�«dnm� O+frC ud �arr� M«row N 1M ►nd«rW Ilrl Ewu AtKn�.. kc ��C�C��L� , � J FEB 0 5 1998 ��v � ! owiNa � t0 X 12' KfTCNEN 10 X 12' � • �iviNa ( f2 x I I• FOYEA � L� 1 T O�� 1600 Sq. F�. FM11LY ROOM � I Z3 X 12� �^ � � � • . nnunt• FUTURE . �,.�M. 1 a��o� � L/�LNDAY ' OPTIONAL J•CAA ('�AAAGE 12X22 �--�-------� r----, 1 I � • � I I � i � ! 'i :� y�a�� ,� . . ' ��t � P Optional features may be shown (n tlie randerings tflat ar� not s2�ndard. �-�^ . � _ : � ...,...� .....�..... . All dimensions are appr4ximate. � � � �� _ . �, G^ .� B.1.. N 0002555 , . . ,•. _ �TO.�'' ' '�7�-'•�.:•v.,�(.�n;l.,! � iM:.:�•i:.ir.a^-�'�'Y.". . {: �. � : � t� - _ _ , ri -� i.•_�_"r !W -. . . � . . .... . .. . ��N: '�.r.: , . . . . . ._. � .-=r�r•r%f' f , • . � . .. � ...... . .. .r�,'.;. _ ./:%:...- ,.;.j.^�r.^i . .. .. � � Szlrveyo�.s �Certificai�� ... ..: .. . . : .:: .. . � _ ��xj . . . .. . . : . . . --;:� � COhiSTOCK & DAV?S, INC. , �. Consulting E.��inc�rs and I..snd Surveyors ="'-.�`'•�''.� ' ' 1446 County Road J, lYlp19., ;�1inn..554�2, 784-9346 _ ^ -i'. r = . _ _ �i� �i� SURDE': OF : '; � - . . � SiTctVEX FOR: . • - - . ' �,; ........ . . �.: � Paz�s of Lot3 34 & 35 . . . - .. . cd.�Eri.cksoa •�:�:•'=.. .; ..;,�.., _ ��;.;;�; : -Aud. Sab. vo. 89 . � . . . .. � � .. .. _ -._ ...8265 �.Spriag La.ke �Pa:.� �, ''-�� ,� Mo�mds Vie•a . . • .. Motmds Viesa,: eSin.nesoza:SSZ.L..'': ; :�amsay CauntJ, ��nnesoCa ' ' • . ._ � . -.,.�;•-„'� M . ....., . . .. .... .: - .. • . . . - ..._ . . .� . . - - . • — :��•`.r�;' :ti?��. _. . ._. _ . .. .. . . . ... .. . . . . ' ` • .'�•'..�� .l,,:r ::.:.r tr� ��1'^5 � • � � • .. ..._ .-.... - _ . _ :i i.o:'��.:- w _. . � - . r . ._ ' . . . _ . -' . ..`.' - r...• <�Yt= � .. . ... � � • .. _ .. .. . .. . . _ : i'�i ' _ _ ��y?�:•�'� • . • - .. '- � � � ' 3S. .. . - • _ ^,;�'^::,' .__;��p c . . .. �T/�e �S /�he �o,�' �or ��. . .. - . ��;;�...�.: . - .4� � � �. � : ,�ud � tib. �i(Ie. 8 9 -�-;: �: . . . - � � _.- �fr.:;:�:- � `�' r~ �-= _ � i . � . � � . ' . � . ' ' ' .. .. . � r� J.'F','• � � %�'�.'�-� /'�'.';� � � • ' Y . .. ' ,�\\,� . � � ��...- • L.� ! - i=w..-. �y ^ . ��a.a. co �-� � i �� -- _ • � � . . -.. �:.�� j .� . �. ..� . _ _..:_,: . .. ,:;�: Z• ., . . . � _ .:. • .. . . ..�.-. ' •�-=:. -._- �. - _ � tl �y . ' ' _ . . ' �� "S "_r„h . .'_: .. . • ' -_-� " 1 .O G4B ?G.S V �/ — ��U 1 pj ' �.�. : % p t . 4 "` ews ,5 . {, � • ,,;� �'�. 4 b'�J`�+ �; Y� �j' f� � — Y L" � > 7, 40 N1�°�; � �r.o �a � �:'"_' � , . . y O � �ty!�r � �„ �' Orcc/nao. r� � . . r. � � ,� v� tc: L; f//iry f �Jr� ^, i �.,� _ « y , °11 � Jo.nr� [_ �: / � ...% i . � - �`I.( 2� � � . Q • 2�8.0� . . Q' ... . --+.. r � � f.!1'��.�.8' • � ry . ' : ' _ -i� . . . . . - -�; ,� r°� � c°� � - _ r.�—_.._—_ ---- — �—•. _ � ' - : :- � -. � -�� . • , �: � .�� .r DES�.�TTe*F: � Th= :ior�� `.eec ot �'�e '+7est 2�8 �r.ec oi *oc 34, �ad tiie Souta 27 fePc . af rize Wes C 218 fe�e .:f Lo c 35 , a1= ��.uc:± t�:^s Sc�-dl�+�aicrs ;Io. 89 , � � Hamsey Couac�, �.�dr.aesoca. Subjec� �o a d:.a.i.aag? and u�Ltq easexeac oce� t`:e east 5 fea� aad suoiPc_ �o oc:�er eases.,�nts ot recard, i.F aay. °• - � �• :. SCALE: / ~= SO � O QeryD: `as iroi� �cn.ur»an� s�°� D �(��(�171� .E: s�r 1 � ��s C` GfT'l �r I�r:�� :`sL:� I hereby ccrtiiy that this survey, p�an or report was pre�ared by cne or under my direct suoervisiors and that 1 am a duly Rc�istered Land Surveyor under the taws of the State o� '.�iinneso:�. ' �� 1 n ^.1 _ C � � � _•_ 4_�� ri4^..,----- J�1�(%—�� Rc�. No. Uacc 1ob No. � � - -� f - __- �—_ ___.....` �_' ._ ��.:..,i��-L. -.L�i.._ __:._�._..__�--_ '.. - .:--_s:::. -. _ � �.�. . L". e,_'-..'._ - . .. .«_ ,..__'_�"— __ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1�10. 532-98 CITY OF MOUI�IDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTI�1`�T DENYING A 7 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE R]EQUIRED 30 FOO'I' BUILDING SETBACK FROM A PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG ARDAN AVENUE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT 8265 SPRING LAKE ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. 513-98 WHEREAS, the IVlounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Preferred Builders, Inc. to allow a 7 foot variance to the required 30 foot building setbacic from a public road right-of-way for the construction of a single family home at 8265 Spring Lalce Road; and, WHEREAS, this properiy is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is legally described as: Tfie North S3 feet of the West 218 feet of Lot 34, and the Soutfi 27feet of the West 213 feet of Lot 35, all in Auditors Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Buildin� Front Elevation 4. Letter from the Applicant 5. Encroachment Map 6. Survey of Previous Home WHEREAS, the applicant requests a 7 foot variance to the required 30 foot building setback from a public road as required in Section 1104.01, Subd. 3, of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the applicant presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission stating that the lot dimensions were substandard for a corner lot and that the proposed home cannot meet the setback requirements without a variance; and, WHEREAS, there are no e:ctraordinary or exceptional circumstances that apply to this property that would justify the granting of this variance request; and, � . __��. _� � : _°_ = �=-�� I�.:_-•.=..._z ��,.__._<w:�. k�_!�.--- -- -._�_�_ .. t�__ _ '�'`3' �— .- �- _. I ._- Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-98 February 18, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the City Code does not deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district; and WHEREAS, the conditions which necessitate the variance request were lcnown by the applicant prior to purchasing the property in that the applicant is not required to build a home at the proposed size; and WHEREAS, granting this variance requested will confer on the applicants a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the sarri� district in that building setbacks from a public street require a 30 foot setback in the R-1 zoning district; and, WHEREAS, the variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title and to other properties in the same zone in that the building setback would be 7 feet less than what is allowed by Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Conunission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denies the variance request of Preferred Builders, Inc. for a reduction in the building setback requirement to a public right-of-way from 30 feet to 23 feet for the construction of a single-family home at 8265 Spring La1ce Road. Adopted this 18th day of February, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairman I�r�DI.�I R.ick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:�DATA\GRO UPS\COMDE V�D E V CA S ES\5 I 3-98\53 2-2-98. RE S .� _� .,.- . � �;.� _ ;�.� �-�•- :_ �_ � : : _. _ , _ _ _- _ _ _ __ __ _ . - _ , __ � --- - - - - -- _ � � r, c PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RANISEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2410 Highway 10, 1. Call To Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperso,a 2. Roll Calt i Nfembers �resent: Chairperson Peterson, C�z��;��sioners and Stevenson. '> Members absent: Commissioner B�'�saemle ��ccus�:�x). � : �� Regular Meet�mg February 4, 1998 Mounds.;�i[�'vv City Hall �� ,!��s �'ir w, MN 55112 7:00 p.m., 1 Fba;?;� �;% ��; 1998. Miller, Obert, :;'� ' . Also present: Community D�tel;(ipment T3iTectoc Jc��tce, Planning Associate Ericson, and Recorder Dave Hix. Counu�,L��ison �"400memers.:�as absent (Excused) Index to I`��i��a�;��;�;�:� Planning �;'�t<�� T�. `� 17-9�, `��, Saturn De�tr��rs�a��i��_. � �1i��y ��; County Road I and Eastwood Road; �'�enti arid Rezoning, TOLD Development Company Planning Case �ip, ` Compreh�nsive T� (Walgreens) >: >:., way l0; D t Review, Page 2 � �o:: ' Approv�l of M�,riutes ��, T��,�ember 17, 1997 `,. i�'. � ��uary 7, 1998 . Chairperson Peterson asked for comments, questions or changes to the listed minutes. There were no comments, questions or changes. : ---- s--- � � :-- 9 - I� �.��.�_�� r -_._- -�: .��. '.i:. _�:,:._:.3 ' �, :.�,? �.-:_��.-._��s G'' :�.:i•.. . _ . ___..._:� . � . . ._��_ — �_._ _�_ - _ „ I I Mounds View Planning Commission February 4, 1998 Regular Meeting � Page 2 Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brooks to approve the listed minutes as submitted. Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. :�;;� iJJ.i�'!{',k. . � ��a:;-�� < ��iy;�,.:. 4. Citizen Requests and Comments on Items Not oid�:>the Agen No citizen requests and comments on items Not 5. Planning Case No. 512-97 2375 Highway 10 Applicant: Saturn Development Development Review The applicant, Saturn Associate Ericson told revise an expansion �t�a sc I-�;��:;� h�ys and ca;z tnlr� t.� r3 ;�.�:�Y�lf} ��?1 L}1F Cl��lra : add �� s�;��c��c;� ba�s t� show flt�c�� K}<tc� �for ne space will rei�»iT�'ti. slightly. The City i for a total of 49 sp`� count. The City� s standards. ><<>_:<:3� re r�sented b P: . Y-. Price, was present. �ommiss��t:,that S�'rn Development is asking the City to it was a�� d �� the City in 1996. The originally approved �.cility wi�) €�.� ��c�ified and relocated per the new plan. Saturn ��al to put the car wash on the west side of the building and ,.��s� �ide of the building. This addition would create additional �� prr�ducts that will be introduced in the near future. �.�,�:�� a�-e not eYpected to change as a result of this project. Green a�, ��.r�. The parking and outdoor storage areas will be reduced �e��iki��es 22 customer parking spaces and 27 employee parking spaces, ices. Saturn is proposing 55 spaces distributed in a slightly different asking Saturn to redistribute their parking plan to meet the City '"�')x� 1_��-'CUP requirements (conditional use requirements) are met with one exception, ,�1� ��u7g: A minimum of 10 percent of the property, e;ccluding setback requirements, is requii-ed for landscaped jreen space. When the original CUP was approved by the City it was determined that the 10 percent green space could be included in the setback area. The other issue with the project is the concern about water drainage. The Rice Creek Watershed District has been contacted regarding the proposed project. The may rec�uire � _ _ . _ __, _ � : � , = -�- — , � _ . _ _ _ _ , � �- ----- `__ _-_ - ---- - -- -----;� ---- : �� Mounds View Planning Commission Regul�r Meeting ' February 4, 1998 Page 3 that Saturn provide on-site-storm-water ponding or receive a variance. No variance application has been submitted by Saturn to rectify this issue. Associate Ericson told the Commission that the City staff is reco�r�.tnend��g'that the following additional information be supplied by the applicant: „ 1. More detailed information regarding the d 2. Revised photometric analysis showing foo adjoining streets and luminaire specificai�� 3. Documentation from Ramsey County ind:d� combined. 4. Indication from Rice Creek Watershed Di: be required. If so, the applicant shall rev�� ponding will be provided. In addition, the following stipulat 1. Add notation to plans and kept free oF inven 2. Provide detail on pl;�r;i concrete pad. :�' Erics �,t� to ige for the ,itir�'; dle readii;�s i:o �� <';,� ;?'�,��iat the three lots tc r, :>,�It�:i:��z.or not on-site ponding will thc� sif.� �3��?�is ��a show how on-site nd em��r�t�f,� �a.rlcing will be�clearly marked locatiaz� of handicapped stalls. encl,p�iire will be constructed. Show ,,� mee�.��-'�i�c, �ist`.ed requirements would make it possible for a resoluti`on ior this proposal. _ _ _ _ __ __ _ Jim ��m�, ii�arn Saturn l�PV�Ia��nt, told the Commission that Saturn should do whate�er is �a��ssaxy to mec,�t�'��e requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District. He add�:� that th� �t�xour�i oC asphalt area on the site is being decreased so there probably w�uld be no neec� �s�,• c�n��ite ponding. The lighting issue is being addressed and copies of �he requested spc-r ��,<��ons will be submitted to the City as requested. `! Commissioner �tevenson told the Commission that one of his concerns now, as it was at � the time of apprtival of the original development, is the Highway 10 right-of-way, and that '�� rPmain av�.ilable for bike paths and trails. I�ei�:}r. �rice told the Commission that combining the (ots, as rec�uested, would take from six weeks to two months. This process is currently underway with Ramsey County. Associate Ericson told the Commission that there are no proposals to amend the eYisting CUP and there will be no impact to the CUP as it has been approved. He added that there L--'=-- �-_--�a ��_- � - --�.�:r �n �.�- - --�s= ,:�i _ �� ._ - — -_____ -- � __ _- _._ _ N Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February d, 1998 Page 4 will be landscaping along County Road H2 to provide some screening. The City Forester has reviewed that plans and given his approval. Commissioner Johnston suggested that all of the surrounding n� �,,1�bor�� made aware of the project. This would give them a chance to voic�. their o�,Ib�tc,��A; �,�tiien the Plan comes back for approval. "� ' ;,`:;'.. ::�� Associate Ericson said the Development would be�put on the.:�ge�ac(�� a�,; 3:; Commission meeting scheduled for February 1 b, ,"i �.'��. H�;a`t�ded the sux 4�t.� neighborhood would be made aware of the meetii� �_ �'e;r;�;y would have a c and voice their opinions. „ G. Planning C:�se No. �07-97 Highway 10, County Road I& Eastwood Rp��l Applicant: TOLD Development Compan�y(�ValgrecA�� Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezorun� ;�% The applicant, TOLD D � ��?a.�x�:;�� e��a� �€��' r�sid'��i�� .o (imiCec� �� low ��;�>;ai.y ��idential �+ In additi�� i�3 �i�� rt��oni be reauii-ec f o�' ��RS �ra�n � 3 �., attend €npment, �t�r� preSPn;C�>. �• �:ommi�;:ar�� c��'� proposed rezoning on the property is from ;69. A c;omprehensive plan amendment from high density and x�k�%nrhood commercial will also be required. ; a�d ��omprehensive Plan Amendment, other actions that will sal to move forward are as follows: Major subc��v��i�n of the property, reorganizing the five parcels and vacated Eastwoocf;;Road into one lot. A develp�ment review. <<s;;. Appr.aving the vacation of Eastwood Road. �' R��tt ��e'Ericson defined the Compreliensive Plan process for the benefit of the �a�r��c;�i�e. He added that changing the Comprehensive plan is not a simple process because it changes the face of the City, and the appropriateness of any change needs to be questioned extensively. The zoning of a property has to match the Comprehensive Plan and they cannot be in conflict with each other. The Comprehensive plan takes precedence over zoning issues. _ _. - _ �_ _ � .. . .� .. . ' - . d=:._��..'.��-.-�_ --.._ L � �"�1. ">��_v._' �€�w-<^_�...��"`=_ �_.._u.n��s�_____" � __" " `. -_� �.._""_ . -.-..� .._.. . . :.: __'�'_.� _ - ' __' - _ .. ' __�"_ . Ic I" � I Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting ' February 4, 1998 Page 5 This is the reason that the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended for the Walgreen Development. The Comprehensive Plan issues are: 1. What kind of buffer is the developer providi 2. Trai�ic impact, a 40 percent increase in tra� 3. Suitability for residential development. ; 4. The impac on the City's tax base. ' 5. Green space The rezoning issues are: 1 2 3 4 5 6 The relationship to the Comprehensi Surrounding developments, what a€�� Demonstrated need for the dew�lc�pi-r Grading issues ,,;:�� Traffic impact, closing of�>�astwood Crime impact :�:<;��" .:=>k��: Commissioner Johnstoa the st�iement made 1��.� �� W�.l��cr� project �.�7rV�� il�Y�; �xeny`4?a �� :r'p .��7J� Cr��;�;ii The re��to�.��t�Il�1s. ICeyt�6 the Wal�,°�:`;rt ��°oj�E;i wenc .. .h� `, . ... ..... ad ked Mr. �urutingh�if there was any verification to back up en that �a�r ��c��would fall in value by 15 percent if the gh. IvT��: �"�.��ai�tgham declined to comment. ive, stated that she had a realtor appraise her property. property would decrease in value by 10 - 15 percent if ;�arren Jol►n��, '1'1'�f} (�reenwood Drive, asked the Commission who would be responsible for the d��r�ase in value of his property if the Walgreen project is approved. He asked the Commission to research this question and have some type of answer available at the;ri�t meeting that involved the project. ��'��u�u�.�n�►ner Obert sug;ested that the City use an independent real estate appraiser to ��^�� 'r��; �iroperties in question. Associate Ericson stated that an independent appraiser was available for the City's use and the City Attorney could be called in to answer questions of valuation impact that the Walgreen project might have. -- - ----- ---� '`� - ----- ,. . �� _.. �. _�_�_ __�� I�.- -=-- ----- t . . _ � _. . . .� � _ _ = . .. -- a Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 4, 1998 Page 6 Mr. Johnson added he is also concerned how the Walgreen project will affect the time it takes for a person to sell his home if he decides that he can't live in the neighborhood once the project is given the go ahead. ,<;:��:;y Mary Polachek-King, 7751 Greenwood Drive, stat would affect the residents' ability to safely use Hill�� Walgreen project would also bring with it more ren€� saturated rental property climate in Mounds VievE1;<�;�� Bob Cunningham, with TOLD Development, �; the developer's desire to cooperate with the City implementing traffic-slow-down designs into the drainage problems to alleviate flooding in the prr site. Mr. Cunningham stated that the development lot-size-to- building number of cars entering into the V times, with the number of car.�°;�itc �r��-�lu is 20 ;- nme i,she has �;��ztt�;:r�`�w about ho�v traffic � �ark. `�`�� fg�l_c�z:�� hai the r�' � � propertie� ±.� ,3�� <��a�l�� over ; �: � 3 �y' £,�` � �� 's�project develop�� ;^�erl�it is ��hbors. This could include �> �z�cx ��;�o rP-engineering existing :s "2��L�E ��c��€?�e�- on the development ,�t +-�,t�o is 9� 'e� �c � p �rcent; typically a retail �� 't r� r_�e �.tlded that the average r w�,�:�r.�' �� , six cars an hour at normal c�l..<. ��er ;aour during peak-use periods. Mr. Cunnignham told tl��;±Commissi�� that the��roject would generate 35-45 jobs. A.pprQximately 15 2� i�f th� jobs wo�ald t�e; �3�Rt-`fime with the balance being full-time, and oFt��;�>L; �here wo�lt� �ac;� `�»� executi�v� p�>��i�ns, including manager, assistant mana�er, and NIr°o �(��n�i Drive to k b�cause of Fire 1= �ity is saying tha can be closed of� the safety concer d he h�.v �s?ce,� �he City on numerous occasions to close off Greenwood ��?.t� sor►�� e accidents that occur because of the high traffic flow on ��:�n>told b'y the City that Greenwood Drive cannot be closed off ��i:r�i��t, Police Department, and school bus use. However, now the ��;�;�1�a.y to close offEdgewood Drive. Mr. Johnson said ifEastwood r fax-base reason, then Greenwood should be able to be closed off for of the residents. �xrrnns�a��er Obert su��ested that all the facts, tr�c counts, accident reports, etc., be 9��;+`c�d so the discussions that are taking place can be based on fact and not on e. Chairperson Peterson recommended that a broader traff'ic ana(ysis be done because the current traffic study addresses only the areas north of Long Lake Road and County Road I. � -- -_ - --- - - ---- - �-----_-- - --=�- - -- - �-- - -- Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting _ . _� � _ �� __� � February 4, 1998 Page 7 Michael Chen, representing Benshoof &�ssociates, tra%�'ic consultants, addressed the Commission and stated that the study area and scope of the traf�°ic study were determined by the areas that would be affected by closing offEastwood Drive at Count�;�oad I. Areas south of this would not be affected. ;�' Mr. Chen stated the study shows that closing offE��vt�od an ��;,��ip,��he �Nal�reen project, 18 cars an hour would be added to the trafft�''flow on � - Ms. Polachek-King stated the study time was Ms. Keyes stated the traf�ic on Greenwood is mu recreation that is taking place in Hillview Park. S count was accurate. Mr. Chen stated the Walgreen project wt�u' enter into the Highway 10 County Road �`in 1.2 percent of the total trai�ic that �;5 �n this i John Wiens, 7760 Green concerns about the accura I��s�e ��' stated wr si�Y�r'tia�r�t decrea� ��. �� t��v:�r:;%. Ch�.11l° 1V�r. Chen told t�� Nfetropolitan Cou for any given day,;< 610�11 c on Hi o�a sai �P,IP,(�. vc. r' r a good a:� tlie summer because of the she didn't think the trafd�c � set��.�t�.�ie ari adrl��i�rtal S6 cars that would e�M��c�r.t cl�,��ing the p.m. peak hour. This is itc r�s. �i �rz4� f.��? ��y given day. �' _ oned iU�°. Chen's figures and stated his �:�s completed, in 1999, there will be a This will make Highway 10 a safer road to ; very disappointed when the pedestrian bridge over ssioner Obert agreed. xr.t�ssion at 714 cars per day, Greenwood Drive is well within the iefinition of maYimum tra.f�c for a residential street's traffic count 1VIso Keyes sa�dF�she would like to know the increased cost for the City to maintain the ��ads that,are affected by the increased traffic. She asked if this information could be f�z�iz�l�t, to'the next� meeting that was held in rejards to the Walgreen project. IVIr. Johnson asked if it would be possible to put funds in escrow to protect the residents from water damage caused by unforeseeable flooding of the Walgreen property and its effect on the adjoining residential properties. � ___'__'-' 1_. _ � . ;:., �. . _ ._� r'_ ' " ' . ._. .. _ .�� Mounds View Planning Commission l�egular Meeting _ k..,��9..,.�____.��_, C�'- -- --_�� ---_- ---= February 4, 1998 Page 8 Mre Cunningham told the owners of the adjoining properties that TOLD would be willing to re-engineer the site so that all storm water run-off was stored on Walgreen property, including that of the adjoining properties. ,;;y:;�y ;��:. �, Joan �olleen, 2617 County Road I, said her concerns;,were ligh;�z��;, ;��c, and the ,r easements that are involved. She asked who would }��ponsib�� ic�;: ir�� ta�ces that would be paid on the 45 feet of property that the :x�jec�t report �f fc ;;lr�ak��'s�� 7iven to ��, adjoining neighbors. Would this be considered a S�'�nic easet�k`ei�t o� �7 �� t� ��;�a ;�;� ease.z�i she asked. '�� '% � _ ': .:.� Associate Ericson stated the property would be o developer would be paying taxes on that properly;; Ms. Keyes said she is not interested in the Ms. Colleen said she is concerned tha%��vvhat� development, will in fact, happen as'y`itis agre< A,ssociate Ericson assured a developers agreement, th� through with the terms o�t that the project will b� �;c�xxt7 �:�`��.��',.'41;'s�fbNl� il'�f*i21��i'ils'1# 7.()�b these ��C.�'��; c�A` l�izc! vJ��B�� 7. Sta,€�'�"ep� Director Jopke area No. l, will ca«se sh� ed, i developer and the to maintain it. to the proposed >> :� --- , � 1V.�_ Colleen �at once tk�� resolution is established, and there is �;agreemenx�?vill be the;;E�w. If the developer does not follow �� agreerr��r��: ther� �>3be a performance bond to make sure pleted as x=�t F:;��r �' , ��:11e audience the Comprehensive Plan review that includes �� 6?c�dressed on February 11, 1998. He invited all interested :> _:. l� Commission the first meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Update, cafeteria of the Pinewood School on February 1 l, 1998. �:'hairperson;.>�rid Planning Commissioners Reports r��ioner Miller told the Commissioners she would be absent from the Planning ssion meeting to be held on the 1 Sth of February due to medical reasons. 9. Adjournment � ._ ��__ , _ �... :� .=- -_ ___� , . f � °_< _ --------� t . — : --- -- -- . v � - -------- — -� Mounds View Planning Commission February 4, 1998 Regular Meeting ' Page 9 There being no further business before the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. , _ ) ,-- - 1 , M < < � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1998 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEE�ING AGENDA 1, Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda --------------------------------------------------�-------------------------------------------m-- CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEA�TG, PLEASE COME T'� THE PO�NM, AND �IVE YO�JR F�TLL NAM� AND �DI�SS FOla THE MINUTES -----�--------------------------------------------�m--------�------_-�_---------------------_me�_ 4. Planning Case IVo. 513-98 Property Involved: 8265 Spring Lake Road Consideration of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a 5even Foot Variance to the Required 30-foot Front-Yard Setback. Applicant: Preferred Builders, Inc. 5. Planning Case No. 507-97 Property Involved: 2625 Highway 10, 7715 - 7761 Eastwood Road Discussion Regarding Walgreens Development Request Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applicant: Told Development Company 6. StaffReports/Liformation Items a. Recap of 2/26/98 Highway 10 Design Theme Workshop (verbal report) 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 8. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting **************************************** APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717-4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. *************************************** i _ _ _ � . ��. - ��_.�:: _� : � : � � . � __ � _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ __ _ _.. . _-- - -�.. . ��_ _.___._.. c�a�_.�—��___ —�-,: � L1_ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION March 4, 1998 (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) AGENDA MEETIN AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. February 4, 1998 b. February 18, 1998 2. Meeting Adjournment � � � __. � �_ , � . � .} � _ __ _ _ _ :..._ � - � �� : __ _ _ 1 � . : _ _ PLANNING COMMISSIO N MEMo '�'o: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Steve Dorgan, Housing Inspector Subject: Planning Case No. S 13-98: Variance for Preferred Builders Date: February 27, 1998 At the Planning Commission meeting on February 18, 1998, the commission tabled the variance request by Preferred Builders until the March 4th regular meeting. The commission requested the city attorney malce an interpretation regarding the language of the Purchase Agreement between the EDA and Preferred Builders pertaining to the minimum site requirements for the subject site. Specifically, whether the city is obligated to approve a variance based on the site requirements of the Agreement. Attached is a letter from the city attorney providing an interpretation of the Purchase Agreement language. Also enclosed is a copy of the staff report, proposed "as built" survey of the proposed lot and Planning Commission Resolution #532-98. Steve Dorgan Housing Inspector 717-4023 Attachments: 1) Letter from City Attorney 2) Planning Commission Report 3) Proposed "as-built" Survey - 8265 Spring Lake Road 4) Planning Commission Resolution #532-98 N:\DATA\GROtJPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\513-98�PC-3 4.MEM Fe6-27°98 01:09pm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN �iennec�� ; , r. l J Ti�V�j� . 47U PiJkbury Ccntc[ 2UU 5ourh Six[h S�rcct Minuc'dpulis MN i5902 (612) 337-9300 c�i�ph�n� (Gl1) 537-9310 rn:c r-mail. :�c[ysC�kc nncdy-;ravcn. com Februaxy 27, I99� 61Z3378310 T-�25 P.02/03 F-090 o��ac�c� FE3 2 7 1g�8 ScarT J. buccs Alk�may +s1 j.sW piicrc I?ial (612) 337-9260 mm�d: an�� ka�neCy-giavca.ocern vT�b FACSIMII.E AND REGiJd.�R MA.IL Mr. �zeve Dorgan Ciiy of Mound� �1icw ?401 Highway 10 Muuzld, Vicw, MN SS112 RE: R�view u� Ed}A/Preferred Builders Purcf�a��e and Redevetopment A�fe�ment Dear S�eve: P�r your request> ! hav� rev�ewed rhe Purchase and Redevelopment Agrzem�nt as to [he Mirumum lrnprovemen�s required �o be consuucted ��ursuant to the Agreemen�. The perdnenL secrioris provide as �allows: 1. The faurth "Wherea�" clau�e in the Pur�:hasC and Redevel�pmenc Agreement s��s chat "thC Developer ro oszs to con�truct on ihe Prap�rty a 1900 sq. f�. chree bedroom modi�ied two story sin�;lr family rrsidendal lioxne, in�luding two full bathrooms and a rhree �ar �ardge, with an �srimat.rd mark�t vaiu� of $145,i)U0." (Emphasis added). 2- The definition secrion of thc Puzchasr and Redevelopment Aareement �tar�s ihat "'Minimum lmprovement�' means the construcrion of a lyUU sq. fr, ehree bedroom modifled two story single family rrsidCntial liom�, including iwo full bathrooms �tnd a rhree car gara.ge, wirh an esrimated markes va.l�e of $I45,UUQ." Secdon 1.0(k} (emphasis added). 3. Exhibii C�o PurchasC and Redevzlop,nent t�gre�mznt -- Houung D��elopmenc and Site Crirxria notes aL Paragraph 2.d. rhat "� 3� Iwo-car atta�hed �ara�e is r�yuired." (Emphasis added}. As dise:u�sed, jhroe�ghout rhe Agreement rzf�rence �s made to construcrion of the Minimurn Improwement� on the Propeny. A, rrview of rhr abc�v� �ro�isions leads io [he �onclusion rhat they are somewhat inconsisrent as to the Nlinunum rinprovements to be consttucted pursuant ra the Purchase and Redevelopmenc Agzeement. Baseci on rhe abo�e, you a.sked: Is rhe Ciry obligaeed to provide a variance for chc Developer SJR.39U3q as72::5 -S Feb-27-98 01:09Pm From—KENNEDY & GRAVEN 6123379310 T-825 P.03/03 F-090 February 27. 1998 Page ? to build th� Minimum improvements it desi.tes [o construct'? The basic answ�r is no, since the EDA cannot gener-ally obligate [he Ciry to gran[ a v�aiance. Addinonally, it app�ars £rom my undersranding of discussion concerning this matter aha.t the Developei can con�truct a thre� car garage on �he pro��zrry wiihout the granting of a v�i�.nce by chc City- Likewis�, pursuant to xtt� A�nezment, if a�ariancC i� necessary, ij is �he D�delogez�', obli�ation Lo ob�in all nCCessary pernuis, eCc_ for the consuuction of ihe 1Vlinunu� LmprovemenTs. lf th� Dzveloper can �how sQme tyj�e of hard�hip (whatever thdc may be), a variance may then be applied for at the rer�uesr of the D��eioper, but rhe Agreement itsclf does not require the granting of rhe variance. Such variancz zeque�t would be independcnt of The Agreemeni and, pursuant to Ciry Code, che burden oi su��aining such request would be thai nf zhe Dev�loper. � hope The dbove ed�quately addresscs the issues you had zaised_ If you should have a.ny quesrions or comrr�nts zegarding this matcer, plea,e clo nQ� hesitatr w concact me. Sincerely, ,• . Sratt J. I2ig . S1R:s cc: Mr. �huck Whiring Mr_ Bab Lang 33R13902a �lU�u5-S REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: Staff 12eport by: Planning Case 1Vo.: Applica�nt: February 18, 1998 Steve Dorgan, Housing Inspector 513-98 Preferred Builders, Inc. Request: The applicant is requesting a 7 foot Variance to the required 30 foot building setback from a public right-of-way along Ardan Avenue for the construction of a new single-family home at 8265 Spring Lake Rcad. I,ocation: PIlV No. Zoning/�,and 1Use: 8265 Spring Lake Road 06-30-23-23-0003 R-1- Single Family Residential LD - Low Density Residential Attachmentse Planning Application Location Map Hardship Statement Encroachment Map Building Plan Lot Survey of Previous Home Planning Commission Resolution # 532-98 Applicable Regulations: Section 1104.01, Subd. 3., requires a 30 foot building setback when abutting a public street. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. The following criteria are individually addressed in Planning Commission Resolution 532-98: a. Exceptional or eYtraordinary circumstances app(y to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date Ilereof liave had no control. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. - _ _�:__ , : �-:� _ . - - Planning Case No. 513-98 8265 Spring Lake Road February 18, 1998 Page 2 c. Q e. f. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminisl� or impair property values within the neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such restrictions and conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of tl�e variance. Background: In 1996, the Economic Development Authority (EDA) acquired the proposed lot through the Housing Replacement Program (HRP). The existing building was then razed and the lot cleared. The property is located on a corner having dimensions of 80' x 218'. According to City Code, a 100' frontage is required for a corner lot in the R-1 Zoning District. In September of 1996, at the time the lot was owned by the EDA, the Planning Commission granted a 20 foot variance to the 100 foot lot width requirement for a corner lot to recognize the existing 80 foot lot width. On January 30, 1998, the EDA sold the proposed lot to Preferred Builders, Inc. As part of the purchase agreement, Preferred Builders is required to build a minimum of a 3 bedroom 2 bath home with a two car garage. The home the applicant is proposing meets all site criteria as outlined in the purchase agreement with the EDA. However, the home is 7 feet wider than the maximum building width allowed by City Code for the proposed lot. Hardship: The applicant indicates that a hardship eYists because a standard corner lot would be at least 100 feet in width and would accommodate the proposed home. The proposed home is S2 feet wide with a three car garage. The applicant claims that the current market demands homes with a three car garage. Because the lot is only 80 feet in width and located on a corner with 30 foot setbacks along each public road, the proposed home would need to encroach approximately 7 feet into the building setback of the road right-of-way along Ardan Avenue. ___ t___. _ , _ ;; Planning Case No. 513-98 8265 Spring Lake Road February 18, 1998 Page 3 Analysis: According to City Code Section 1104.01, Subd. 3., a 30 foot building setback is required along all public streets for lots located in the R-1 zoning districts of the city. The applicant is requesting an additional7 feet to build the proposed hotne. The lot is 80 feet in width and is located on a corner which creates some site constraints. The home previously lecated on the lot was 19.4 feet from the public road right-of-way along Ardan Avenue (see a�tached lot survey). The proposed home would be 23.1 feet from Ardan Avenue. Orienting the home to Ardan Avenue would not alleviate the variance request for the proposed home and would most likely require an additional variance. An orientation of fihe home to Spring Lake Road would allow for a home with a maYimum width of 45 feet. Therefore, the canstruction of a single family home witli a two car garage wculd be accommodated on the proposed lot �Nithout the need fcr a variance. The proposed variance fails to meet hardship criteria for granting a variance as outlined in Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 of the City Code. The proposed lot will support tl�e construction of a 3 bedroom, 2 bath single family home with a 2 car garage as required in the EDA's Housing Replacement Progratn site criteria. The specified site criteria is a nninimum requirement of the purchase agreement the applicant has with the EDA for the proposed property. Recoanmendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 532-98 denying a variance request by Preferxed Builders, Inc. to allow a 7 foot variance from the required 30 foot building setback from a public right-of-way along Ardan Avenue for the property located at 8265 Spring Lake Road. Steve or ' Housing Inspector 717-4023 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\� 13-98\� 13-98PC.RPT _ � � * * 2422 Enterprlse Drlve * PIONEEp Mendota Helghta, MN 55120 * - UND Si1R�EY0RS • am Q,aN�s (612) 681-1914 FAX:681-94� * eng neer n� LANO PUNNERS . �,,►,o�,�E ,,�,,,�� 625 Hlqhway ,o N.E *' Blaine, AIN 55434 * i� 'F (s�a) �a�-�aso Fnx: �s3-�e�� Certifica te of Survey for: PREFERRED B UILDERS House Address: 8265 Spring Lake Road_ (sa.00 Piat) I � ,P 80.37 mea9ured �D IP� ,._._ - - �o��C�ad� ;. � F E s o 5 1998 ;; � 3v 35 PhvPOSID BUII.DIN�: �VA?70N5 Lowest Floor Elevntlon: Top of Blocic Elevvtlon: Gorvqe Slob EfemtTon. �o.o Denotea Exlstfna Elev+nHen � m � �� v m av O o � 0 �m �� N N �.00 34 � I 4,,00 � t 1 o PROPOSED HWSE r~i i N i2 cRS. eswT N i __ I i � 7.33 0 r--�c3 1267 O o GARAGE � N N i i.� Q M M �R�VEWAY zx� 23.1 ` �.�� I �I m � � �^ v � ma �° � I 0 M� � N�= q N �i � � � � �"D � 80.00 - SPRING LAKE ROAD .: _� : _ _ � - - -- - --� „.»�-----�------- �� . - - —� - � --- - = = --- — - IVIOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 532-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUN�'�' OF RAiVISEY ST'ATE �F M�NNEaOTA RESOL�JTION IDEN�II�I�G A 7 FUOT VA�ANCE TO TH� REQUIFtED 30 FOO'�' BUILDIlVG SE'�BACI� F�20VI A P�JBLIC �ZOAD 1�GI�T-OF-vVAY ALONG ARDAN AUEN�JE FOR TI�lE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-]FAMILY I�OI'VIE AT 8265 SPRING LAI{E ROAI➢; PLANNING CASE Na. 513-98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Preferred Builders, Tnc. to allow a 7 foot variance to the required 30 foot building setbacic from a public road right-of way for the construction of a single family home at 826� Spring Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Singie Family Residential District and is leaally described as: Tiie North 53 feet of the tYest 218 feet o.f'Lot 34, �nd tha South 27feet of tlie West 218 feei of Lot 35, alE in Auditors Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Building Front Elevation 4. Letter from the App(icant 5. Encroachment Map 6. Survey of Previous Home WHEREAS, the applicant requests a 7 foot variance to the required 30 foot building setback from a public road as required in Section 1104.01, Subd. 3, of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the applicant presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission stating that the lot dimensions were substandard for a corner lot and that the proposed home cannot meet the setback requirements without a variance; and, WHEREAS, there are no eYtraordinary or eYCeptional circumstances that apply to this property that would justify the granting of this variance request; and, � _ r � , r.-..� � = - - - __. ._ _--- _ _�___ � ��._-------- - . _ . .-- -- . - - - -- Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-98 February 18, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the City Code does not deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district; and WHEREAS, the conditions which necessitate the variance request were 1_cnown by the applicant prior to purchasing the property in that the applicant is not required to build a home at the proposed size; and WHEREAS, granting this variance requested will confer on the applicants a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the sa.me district in that building setbacks from a public street require a 30 Foot setback in the R-1 zoning distrirt; and, WHE:ZEAS, the variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title and to other properties in the same zone in that the building setback would be 7 feet less than what is allowed by Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denies the variance request of Preferred Builders, Inc. for a reduction in the nuilding setback requirement to a public right-of-way from 30 feet to 23 feet for the construction of a single-family home at 8265 Spring Lake Road. Adopted this 18th day of February, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST R.ick Jopke, Commurvity Development Director SEAL N:IDATA\G ROUPS\COMDE V�DE V CA SE S\5 I 3-98153 2-2-98. RE S . ,. �,v... . . . . �.. :..��.�_� k ,�-. ----�-. _ � . -� . . . . _ . �.._��..� , _ `. _.y. __ .:, ;.. �.. . . : - ..- . .. .._ •. -_ . Plannin Commission g Memo TO: Planning �ommissioners FROM: Jim Ericson, Planning Associate SUBJECT: Walgreens Development Proposal DATE: March 4, 1998 At your last meeting on February 18, 1998, the issue of whether or not it would be appropriate to rezone residential properties and amend the comprehensive plan to allow for the development of a Walgreens store at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and County Road I vc�as discussed. The Commission made it clear that a decision regarding the applicant's requests would not be forthcoming until some point after the ne� Comprehensive Plan Corununity Forum meeting, set for March 11, 1998. It was mentioned, however, that the Commissicn would like to be kept apprised of any new information as it becomes available. The applicant has been in contact with the adjoining property owners and would like to report on this aspect of the process. I have been in contact with both MnDOT and Ramsey County traffic engineers, both of whom expressed some level of concern regarding the proposal. Their comments, while not available the day this memo was drafted, will be presented and discussed at your meeting. We have also received copies of the accident data for Highway 10 and the streets intersecting Highway 10. This has not been included with this memo as it is not in a readable format. Hopefully I will have this data translated by the night of the meeting. For the Commission's information, the 60-day date for the rezoning and comp plan amendment falls on March 30, 1998. I have notified the applicant that the City would be exercising its right for an additional 60 days, bringing the date by which a final decision is to be reached to May 29, 1998. N:�DATA\GROUPS\C OMDEVIDEVCASES�507-9'7�507-97.PC3 , �_:� rr.. _ . _ .�-� _ . � . . . — . E.r..:�. ..�... . . . a ` - . . .- � . . . _ _ . . �.. �.. ��:� �--.- i I, •___,_�. - --- � ---.. ..� _ . � . . -- - -- I PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESO'TA Regular Meetirag February 4, 199� Mounds :�,tew City Hal� ;: y 2410 Highway 10, I�t�;unds_ �rew, MN 5511� 1. Call To Order :��f� ;;. , < ,.t. The meeting was called to order by Chairpersor� :-°�a�;�°��} a 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Cc�n��ssioners � and Stevenson. :...;� ' Members absent� Commissioner ��saemle (�;xc�;sc;c�j, ', ; , �' ;::�! � 7:00 p.m , p��,u; � „r� �!; 1998. Miller, Obert, Also present: Community D�irelopment �irector Jo�lce, £�lanning Associate Ericson, and Recorder Dave Hix. Coun�z.1 Lraisof� ��c�opmeinets��vas absent (Excused). Indes t� Plannin�' Saturn Planning Compr (Wal�r ) �, ,5 Z?-93,"�3`7� ��:��hway l0; Development Review, ighway �,(�;''County Road I and Eastwood Road; �i�er�t and Rezoning, TOLD Development Company Page 2 4 '� Approval of v�:xi�utes )' �. _ ��cember 17, 1997 ' �S- January 7, 1998 Chairperson Peterson asked for comments, questions or changes to the listed minutes. There were no comments, questions or changes. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 4, 1998 Page 2 Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brooks to approve the listed minutes as submitted. Ayes - 6 Motion carried. Nays - 0 4. Citizen ll2equests and Comments on Items Not No citizen requests and comments on items Not 5. Planning Case No. 512-97 2375 Highway 10 Applicant: Saturn Development Development Review were co The applicant, Saturn Develop:t��nt, repF�ented by J,im Price, was present, ;..:.. Associate Ericson told tlt� �ommiss�e��,.that S�rn Development is asking the City to �� revisc.��n expansion �l�.p �laat: was a��ca�c�c� ��tihe City in 1996. The originally approved se�i�;� b�ys and c�,: ��;� �acility wi1� Y�� dified and relocated per the new plan. Saturn t5 �.3If��; �t�r the Ci�:�� uWal to put the car wash on the west side of the building and add i�i� ��rv`te�; bays to th� �as� sicle of the building. This addition would create additional show iaoc��•' S��?_r� �or new �ar prot��cts that will be introduced in the near future. Th�;;irr�per-v�ou� suz��3�:�� re not expected to change as a result of this project. Green space will remain'�:�� s�ze: The parking and outdoor storage areas will be reduced slightly. The Citv �•ec��ires 22 customer parking spaces and 27 employee parking spaces, for a total of 49 spaces. Saturn is proposing 55 spaces distributed in a slightly different ,,:. count. The City;i�s asking Saturn to redistribute their parking plan to meet the City standards. `x'��c '��}��i� �UP requirements (conditional use requirements) are met with one exception, �1�i� ti�ii��;: A minimum of 10 percent of the property, excluding setback requirements, is required for landscaped green space. When the original CUP was approved by the City it was determined that the 10 percent �reen space could be included in the setback area. The other issue with the project is the concern about water drainage. The Rice Creek Watershed District has been contacted regarding the proposed project. The may require t - -� -- — _-- '--- -- - — '— - —' t=---=— -._.__ ..- �� _ . . _ _ _ -- � Mounds View Pla�ning Commission Regular Meeting February 4, 1998 Page 3 that Saturn provide on-site-storm-water ponding or receive a variance. No variance application has been submitted by Saturn to rectify this issue. Associate Ericson told the Commission that the City staffis following additional information be supplied by the applicant 1. More detailed information regarding the dr�i�a 2. Revised photometric analysis showing fopfcanc adjoining streets and luminaire specificatfo�:�. 3. Documentation from Ramsey County indic;t��ri� combined. 4. Indication from Rice Creek Watershed Distr�cr ;%<_�' be required. If so, the applicant shall rev�se the ponding will be provided. , , In addition, the followin� stipulati for `t"zmendi�g'that the :� �4v to'Itj� ��;,rrrr;R�l�nc�� the three lois t7��Fr s,�a��.� not on-site �onding will a show how on-site 1. Add notation to plans tha� eustomer:and emplo;z�;c�,parlcing will be clearly marked and kept free of inver�tory: Showt�ie locatia�'oi handicapped stalls. 2. Provide detail on pl� �s=�to how �rash encic��re will be constructed. Show . concrete pad. �',<: �:%�� , , : ;�� y ��.yy��°n��e Erics�� i:��c� ihat meetiY�� t�� R�sted requirements would make it possible for th� �';it�r sf�ff r.o bri��,� �t��;��rd a rPSOiutiori for this proposal. .�iera � whate �Id be no nee requested sp atur�n ��Ia��r�ient, told the Commission that Saturn should do �! to rnee5t ��e requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District. He �u�� of asphalt area on the site is being decreased so there probably �ot t�t��si�e ponding. The lighting issue is being addressed and copies of i�i�taons will be submitted to the City as requested. Commissioner.<;�`Fevenson told the Commission that one of his concerns now, as it was at the time of appjroval of the original development, is the Highway 10 right-of-way, and that .; ��: remain atrdilable for bike paths and trails. I�r� ��.. '��°Il�e told the Commission that combining the lots, as requested, would take from six weeks to two months. This process is currently underway with Ramsey County. Associate Ericson told the Commission that there are no proposals to amend the eYisting CUP and there will be no im}�act to the CUP as it has been approved. He added that there :� ___ __ .; ;__ -=-- -. : � ==- - - - .: • ---- �-s_�`'=--- �-.. 4 -------- - Mounds View Planning Commission February 4, 1998 Regular Meeting � Page 4 will be landscaping along County Road H2 to provide some screening. The City Forester has reviewed that plans and given his approval. Commissioner Johnston suggested that all of the surrounding n��ghbors be made aware of the project. This would give them a chance to votc� their opinyt��i� ��en the Plan comes back for approval. �,�,f Associate �ricson said the I3evelopment would ��put on th�'�gend� ��-i�. ��i� �h��nl�i��,x�"' Commission meeting scheduled for February 18, ��398. II�,�i�ded the s�.�i��r�<€�h��<>' ,, neighborhood would be made aware of the meetf�zr, �� E�iey would have a ci�< ��.��; i'o attend and voice their opinions. _ 6. Planning Case No. 507-97 Highway 10, County Road I& Eastwood Applicant: TOLD Development Compan. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Re� The applicant, TOLD De��Iopment, �ui low In . 2. ;� �. _, �f, �� Ea•ics�� d �h�; Commissip�� fl�e�proposed rezoning on the property is from t.q limited bt��r��s�. A. comprehensive plan amendment from high density and �'resideniial �� t�zg�t�sorhood commercial will also be required. ttic�� tc� rh�; 1��T;�pnin�7 arzd' Comprehensive Plan Amendment, other actions that will aired tar r�z�:� px ��osal to move forward are as follows: Major subdiv�s��n of the property, reor�anizin� the five parcels and vacated Eastwooc� �Zoad into one lot. A development review. Appra��rig the vacation of Eastwood Road. �' ��t�"�ricson defined the Comprehensive Plan process for the benefit of the �ja_� �ic�r�ce. He added that changin� the Comprehensive plan is not a simple process because it changes the face of the City, and the appropriateness of any change needs to be questioned extensively. The zoning of a property has to match the Comprehensive Plan and they cannot be in cor►flict with each other. The Comprehensive plan takes precedence over zozun� issues. -�=-�- =`= _ ._ , _ - _ _ _ _` _ _ _ __ _ � ` _��_ . �.- �- _ ___ _ _ _ . Mounds View Planning Commission Regular 1Vleeting Februaiy 4, 1998 Page 5 This is the reason that the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended for the Walgreen Deve(opment. The Comprehensive Plan issues are: What kind of buffer is the developer prc Traf�c impact, a 40 percent increase in Suitability for residential development. The impac on the City's tax base. Green space The rezoning issues are: The relationship to the Comprehensiv Surrounding developments, what au'e.- Demonstrated need for the deveiopmf Grading issues <;,r� Traffic impact, closing oi�;Eastwood;<-i :.: .<,,� Crime impact >'>'''"� `� �:.>Y _,�i` <:i>,':!if .3:' . Commissioner John the statement made h WaL��t;n nroiect r{r�� sf there was any verification to back up :>�� would fall in value by 15 percent if the am declined to comment. stated that she had a realtor appraise her property. �erty would decrease in value by 10 - 15 percent if '/�.�� reenwood Drive, asked the Commission who would be �c'��ase in value of his property if the Wa(green project is approved. ission to research this question and have some type of answer meeting that involved the project. �r Obert su��ested that the City use an independent real estate appraiser to perties in question. rlsgociate Ericson stated that an independent appraiser was available for the City's use and the City Attorney could be called in to answer questions of valuation impact that the Walgreen project might have. .-. . , i . _� �.— IE..._f<��....��:._.�'_"_�_".._�i L�' .� ==.s'z -i�:. .�. . _-.._�V: _: '.�.�...-`.s�:,__"_._�:_.:'"'��_.5 C. "`".�... ."""_'—_.' "L_'�.= ""- . -'s�---. ." � I Mounds View Planning Commission February 4, 1998 Regular Meeting � Page 6 Mr. Johnson added he is also concerned how the Walgreen project will affect the time it takes for a person to sell his home if he decides that he can't live in the neighborhood once the project is given the go ahead. ;;>;:�;;y Mary Polachek-King, 7751 Greenwood Drive, stated she has r;�a��f �� 3'-'about how traffic would affect the residents' ability to safely use Hillv��ark ��1�� c�cl�� Ilat the Walgreen project would also bring with it more rer�t��sproperties i� �x:7. ��c�,y over- 1 saturated rental property climate in Mounds Vievs�y�" ��%" ;; ` Bob Cunningham, with TOLD Development, V'at;�t ��'syproject develop�i� rar�i.ed it is the developer's desire to cooperate with the City a�d i�t; �a��i.��hbors. This could include implementing traffic-slow-down designs into the s��'ee€s ��<� �j»� re-engineering e�sting drainage problems to alleviate flooding in the properties �lF �.5° f�Q�i clea� on the development site. _ Mr. Cunninghlm stated that the bu�,d��tg-iaW�t�t ,,,�,e�',�•atio is 9lpercent; typically a retail =Y °. development lot-size-to- build�ng ratto �s 20 �� C��,i �� a�ided that the avera�e number of cars entering into the V�algreen,��cility �vqulc� I�� six cars an hour at normal : ___ times, with the number of cac�`�riereastng Co� nine car�:`per hour during peak-use periods. � <:f ' � , �;�� Mr. Cunnignhlm told t�e Comm�sc4c,�€ that th�f�ro�ect would generate 35-45 jobs. f f.�t�:°;: Approximately 15 -� �; c��' ��e jobs w�,uCc� i�� ra�;��fime with the balance being full-time, and ;� of tt��r��>there wo�ff � i�� '1�� executi�l�� t��+i.r�ns, including manager, assistant manager, and �ali��-�n�c�is�s. IVIr. ,YoE`�i� Drive ta h th�� street be�ause of Fire City is saying th can be closed of the safety conce d he h��'�slc�� he City on numerous occasions to close offGreenwood i�te so��: rai'' �11e accidents that occur because of the high traffic flow on ��n>told by the City that Greenwood Drive cannot be closed off 3�tm�xat, Police Department, and school bus use. However, now the t is c�i<ay to close offEdgewood Drive. Mr. Johnson said ifEastwood �r tax-base reason, then Greenwood should be able to be closed off for of the residents. rr�r��e��aa��er Obert sugaested that all the facts, traffic counts, accident reports, etc., be ��c�-�c� so the discussions that are taking place can be based on fact and not on Chairperson Peterson recommended that a broader traffic analysis be done because the current traffic study addresses only the areas north of Long Lake Road and County Road I. ,__� ��.�__ `�'" ' �___. �- �� =_" -� f .__ _ - ----- -- --_------- , �. . _--- -. l. � - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting ]February �1, 1998 Page 7 Michael Chen, representing Benshoof & Associates, traffic consultants, addressed the Commission and stated that the study area and scope of the tra$ic study were determin��. by the areas that would be affected by closing offEastwood Drive at County;rRoad I. Areas south of this would not be affected. _"_- :;::�<� NIr. Chen stated the study shows that closing off project, 18 cars an hour would be added to the tra Ms. Polachek-King stated the study time was t �ood a ow on A r �� `�et a good Walgreen !rive. NIs. I�eyes stated the traffic on Greenwood is n�t�� f, xi�,t�vx��.�n the summer because of th.� recreation that is taking place in Hillview Park. Sil� ; r�c�. s�%r� :,he didn't think the traffic �_. count was accurate. � ;y"� Mr. Chen stated the Walgreen pro�ect wo�a: enter into the Highway 10 County Road T in 1.2 percent of the tota( traffic that,:t.siin this i John Wiens, 7760 Gree concerns about the accu► I0�!r> �<��a statecl. wh�;zt,t si�a��c�n.t: decrea�r-: z�:t i;t`� tf ;�'vc�i� Ch�tie°��vf�°��rra ��u°��Il s Highw�,y' 10 vJ�� i�cele� l�`r. Chen told tha 1Vletropolitan Co�i for any given day.;. nve, 610-11 conHi ned __ _. �n �ddii�c>��z1 56 cars that would urin� the p.m. peak hour. This is t�� :a.�.�given day. Chen's figures and stated his yis completed, in 1999, there will be a This will make Highway 10 a safer road to very disappointed when the pedestrian bridge over sioner Obert agreed. nission at 714 cars per day, Greenwood Drive is well within the efinition of maximum traffic for a residential street's traffic count �`;� ivT�, Keyes sattip�she would like to know the increased cost for the City to maintain the a.<��ds tl�.�� exaffected by the increased traffic. She asked if this information could be ��xu�;�� o�the next meeting that was held in regards to the Walgreen project. . i�Ir. Johnson asked if it would be possible to put funds in escrow to protect the residents from water damage caused by unforeseeable flooding of the Walgreen property and its effect on the adjoining residential properties. �.s-� _ _ � : = � - - _�� - --� , �:'�%....� __._�._ -� _ 1LL _ _•__ --' e. 1_" -- � � _�_._ �.y� . - . =��_� - - - � � � - -- � - ---- —� - �'— -'- -- -'-"- X Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 4, 1998 Page S Mr. Cunningham to(d the owners of the adjoining properties that TOLD would be willing to re-engineer the site so that all storm water run-off was stored on Walgreen ro ert inc(udina that of the ad oinin ro erties. "' P P Y, � J gP P � � �'h : Joan Colleen, 2617 County Road I, said her concerns:.,were li�l�€,��;, ��ic, and the easements that are involved. She asked who would 1��spo�zsz�I�: �c,�° t�z� �axes that would be �aid on the 45 feet of property that the ��'t��ect repo� c��:c.t �`:f�;�.��c� ��; �iven to adjoining neighbors. Would this be considered a��enic ease�t�nt or �t E�r;c�ir;f�P�� ease� she asked. �;�'� %� `, � Associate E: icson stated the property would be � developer would be paying taxes on that property ,;;;,;: Ms. Keyes said she is not interested in the lau�< �f Ms. Colleen said she is concerned that,,whate��,�; development, will in fact, happen �yt�is agreet� tic ::::�� '::::N' Associate Ericson assured 1VIs: �olleen ��at once a developers agreement, the ��r�emen� Vuill be the through with the terms of t�e agreemen�,there y�r�j rai . that the project will b�cett�ipleted as=a�,��ci:'�;�� ..l��kF�tr+r&�1� Yeie�°cCI��P �;(�tf� tliese'��'�.r1s r�f la.nd ��tai��` citizens i:r� �iE��'c�,.. 7. Sta��Itepmn��/��k��rx��i�u� se (�,e developer and the to maintain it. ed �n;tegards to the proposed resolution is established, and there is �. If the developer does not follow a performance bond to make sure audic;nce tl�e Comprehensive Plan review that includes �dressed on February 11, 1998. He invited all interested D'rrector Jopke to�cr ��yE�`Commission the first meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Update, area No. 1, will be>at the cafeteria of the Pinewood School on February 11, 1998. ,;<�:�' �h�irperson �nd Planning Commissioners Reports ��o�aer Miller told the Commissioners she would be absent from the Planning ssion meeting to be held on the 18th of February due to medical reasons. 9. Adjournment . . � � : : �---�_I 1=:, � L. _ _ _ _ _' "—'_ _ �'_. . �' `_ � �—' _:..—.�.:_ . . . "'^ - . - '. .. . .. . _ _ ._. _.. _ — __ ." "" "'_' .� c' _ . _ �_ ' _' """ . "�". �� __._ � Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 4, 1998 Page 9 There being no further business before the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meetin� at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ric� Jopke Community Development Director _ ,� _ � .� _ _ _ PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNl)S V�W PLANNTNG COlVINIISSION CTTY OF MOUNDS 'VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, NIINNESOTA Special Meeting February 18, 1998 li�Ioa�uads View City Hall 2410 Highway 10, Mou�e�i5 View, MN 55112 1. Call To Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., February 18, 1998. 2. Rop Call Members resent: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Brasaemle, �rooks(departed at 9:15 p.m.), Johnston, and Obert. Members absent: Commissioners Miller(excused), and Stevenson(excused). Also present� Community Development Director Jopke, Plaruung Associate Ericson, Council Liaison Koopmeiners(departed at 9:20 p.m.), and Recorder Dave Hix. Indez to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 512-98, 2375 and 2395 Highway 10, Consideration of ( Resolution No. 535-98, Regarding Development Review, Saturn Development. Planning Case No. 507-97, 2625 Highway 10, 7715-7761 Eastwood Road, 8 Discussion Regarding Walgreen's Development Request, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning, TOLD Development Company Planning Case No. 513-98, 8265 Spring Lake Road, Consideration of Resolution 4 No. 532-98, Approving a 7-Foot Variance to the Required 30-Foot Front-Yard Setback, Preferred Builders, Inc. 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items not on the Agenda No citizens requests or comments for items not on the were considered. � i- `.-- -„- -- - - - '-- --. ..-.. v.�`_ _'_ ��.. _ -. t � ----- _� �: , .: .�_- - =_-- -- _� I Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998 Special Meeting Page 2 4. Presentation: North Metro I-35 orridor Coalition Univ r iiv of Minnesota De ign Team Director Jopke gave the Commission and citizens in attendance a brief introduction to and background on the University of Minnesota Design Center for American Urban Landscape(Design Center) and the North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition(Coalition). The seven communities of Arden Hills, Blaine, Circle Pines, Mounds View, New Brighton, Roseville, and 5horeview make up the Coalition. Their vision statement was stated as follows: "The Coalition will jointly and cooperatively plan for and maximize the opportunities for regional community development, quality growth and diversification in the North Metro through a system of collaboration." Mayors and city administrators/managers comprise the governing board. The first year's, 1997, accomplishments include: 1. securing outside sources of funding 2. laying the foundation for a common Geographic Information System(GIS) 3. building relationships within the Coalition as well as other governmental entities such as Anoka County, Ramsey County, school districts, state agencies, and the Metropolitan Council. The Coalition's second year goal is to develop a subregional planning framework to shape and direct future work. The Coalition has contracted with the Design Center to assist in opening up this framework development for community input. Jopke told the Commission it is fundamental that corrununity development committees, council members, appointed commissions, and interested citizens participate in the process. Future Coalition events will include a Coalition-wide working session for councils and corrunissions to be held in March or early April, and a Coalition Summit to be held in early May. William Morrish, Director ofthe Design Center, told the Commissioners and citizens in attsndance if the seven city coalition was combined into one city, this city would be the third largest community in Minnesota. In the ne�ct ten years this second-tier-urban area, as it is labeled by the Metropolitan Council, will have over 660,000 people living and working in it. Because this area is considered fully developed, in terms of open space, the question becomes: What do we do next? This is the question that the Design Center will assist the Coalition in answering. Mr. Morrish told the Commission that the Coalition is one of the first groups in the metropolitan area to address the growth and change issues. He said the State Legislature is very interested in the I-35W Corridor Coalition because of this fact. The process is an _ _ _ : __ : _ _ __� . --- �= - ' Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998 Special Meeting Page 3 aggregated grass roots type of project, and this is what is spurring the interest of the Legislature. Partnerships are important, if only from the standpoint that no one city has a tax base that would allow them to address the problems that need to be solved. Mr. Morrish complimented the Coalition on standardizing the Comprehensive Plan Language. By doing this, it will make it possible for one city to talk to another city in the same language. Each city would be able to react to another city's development that is going to affect their borders. Mr. Morrish stated the GIS system is going to make traffic analyses much easier for the Coalition area. It will also help assess housing issues that depend on location based criteria. Mr. Morrish's third point of discussion addressed "standards". How are we going to accommodate change but also maintain the quality of life in the communities? This, he said, would be the most difficult of tasks because of the intenelation of community boarders. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions and comments. Commissioner Johnston stated the GIS maps would be a great help in locating problem areas and approaching design issues on a geographical basis. Commissioner Brooks commented on the fact that the joint effort of the Coalition would take the element of surprise out of the surrounding communities developments. All the cities would know what developments were taking place in each other communities. Commissioner Brasaemle stated the Coalition is the ideal forum to address the issue of public transportation. He added that a trails system should also receive top priority in the design process. Brasaemle told the Design Center the citizens of Mounds View have expressed the desire to have a"little narrower streets." Mounds View city redevelopment was also a point of discussion with the Commissioner. Commissioner Obert commented on the compatibility of all seven cities with the Met Council. He asked if the Met Council would treat this coalition similazly as they have other city groups. Obert specifically stated that Blaine had problems working with the Met Council. � Mr. Morrish told Obert the Met Council was very interested in this Coalition because of its advanced development and organization. He added currently there is a bill in the Legislature as the first to recognize the I-35W Coalition. MnDOT is also interested and has supplied some funding for the development of coalition groups. Chairperson Peterson asked if there is a unified front on the Anoka County Airport _ . ___ _ � - - - ---- - -- -- -- --� -- -- - ...-. .` _.___._ _ _ _ _ _� Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting Development. February 18, 1998 Page 4 Mr. Morrish said there would be problems, this being one of the major ones for this Coalition Group. It is the challenge to the group to solve the problem so that all participants can get some benefit from the development. Cflmmissioner Obert stated the Coalition would 'oe a good opportunity for the communities to apply some needed pressure on the Met Council as a way to get the ball rolling on some projects. Warren Johnson, 7710 Grreenwood, asked who chose Mounds View as a pilot area for the Coalition program. 19�Yr. I4'lorrish told Johnson the Mayor and city administrators were already working together, and the Mayors Association had been formative in getting the City of Mounds View involved in the process. 5. Plannirng Case Pdo. 513-9� 8265 Spring Lake Road Applicant: Preferred Builders, Inc. Consideration of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a 7-Foot Variance to the Required 30-Foot Front-Yard Setback. The applicant, Darryl Westerlund was present. Steve Dorgan, Mounds View Housing Inspector, gave the Commission a brief background on the proposed development: In 1996 the Mounds View EDA acquired a lot at the above address through the Housing Replacement Program. At that time a 20-foot variance was applied for and granted to deal with the property's SO-foot width and the City's 100-foot-frontage requirement. On January 30, 1998, the EDA sold the property to Preferred Builders. As part of the purchase agreement Preferred Builders was required to build a minimum three bedroom, two bathroom home with an attached two car garage. The home proposed by Preferred Builders meets all of the City's requirements with the exception that the house is 7%et wider than the code allows. This width difference is due to the house having a three car attached garage instead of a two car attached garage. The owner is asking for a 7-foot variance to resolve the problem. Staff is recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 532-98 denying a _ � - ---------------- . - - = -- � � ,� - -;: ��..� ,_ __;_ � �-_,: -------- -. . . .� - -_-- Nlounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998 Special Meeting Page 5 variance request by Preferred Builders, Inc., to allow a 7-foot variance from the required 30-foot building setback from a public right-of-way along Ardan Avenue for the property located at 8265 Spring Lake Road. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions and comments. Commissioner �rasaemle asked the Builder what rationale was used to select the submitted home design for this property. He stated that a different home plan may have worked better on this piece of property. Darry! Westerland, representative for Prefened Builders, told the Commission the chosen home is the company's most popular design. He continued saying that the company has no home in their design file that would work on the property. Mr. Westerland stated all communication that was held with the City specified this home plan, including the three car garage. He referred to Ms. Bennett as the City's representative on communication matters for the proposed project. Westerland reminded the Commission there is a signed purchase agreement with the City that stipulates the house design as submitted. Westerland offered, as an attempt to settle the issue, to accept a four-foot variance. He stated the garage could be modified to accommodate this solution. Chairperson Peterson stated that market conditions are such that a three car garage is standard. Commissioner Johnston stated the Builder did not meet the criteria for hardship, although, he would like to see the project approved. Commissioner Brasaemle told the Builder that it was unfair for him to blame the City staff, Ms. Bennett, for the error. He said it is the Builder's responsibility to make sure that al l of the City's dimensional requirements, codes, and specifications are met. Mr. Westerland said he did not intend to place blame on any one individual, but again reminded the Commission that he had a signed document that approved the plan as submitted. The Commission reviewed the documents and it was noted that there was conflicting information within the document that would need to be resolved by the City Attorney. It was proposed that the Variance request be tabled to another meeting. This would give the staff the time it would need to resolve the conflicting information issues with the City Attorney. Moti9n/Sec nd• Brasaemle/ Peterson to table Planning Case No. 513-98, Consideration of Resolution No. 532-98, approving a 7-Foot Variance to the Required 30-Foot Front-Yard Setback to a later meeting, thus giving the staffthe time that is required to resolve legal issues with the City Attorney. �s .-��i " . � p ' _ _ _ – �} .,��r��'" —� �:s«'_ _�_��. - � ��--"�' --��- r :. ...__� _ -- _' ' � =1'� _ r.� �i�_.<�� ._�. � '�'. Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting Ayes-5 Motion carried. Nays - 0 6. Planning Case No. 512-98 23 75 and 23 95 Highway 10 Applicant: Saturn Development Consideration of Resolution No. 535-98 regarding Development Review February 18, 1998 Page 6 The applicant, Saturn Development, represented by Tim Price, was present. Associate Ericson gave the Commission a brief review of the Development background. On February 4, 1998 the Planning Commission held a Development review of the proposed Saturn Project. At this meeting it was decided that the neighbors within a 350 feet of the proposed project would be notified and given a chance to meet with Planning Commission to discuss the Development. The original site plan, which had been approved in 1996 is being modified so that the new plans will include added showroom space, service bays and a car wash. All work in the new development will be to the east of the existing building, with the exception of the car wash. The Primary issues with this development are availability of parking, site lighting and the possibility, combining of the parcels for tax purposes, and the Rice Creek Watershed District(RCWD) might require on-site stormwater storage. The revised site plan dated February 12, 1998, shows all of the requested changes have been made with regard to the parking counts, handicapped stalls, garbage dumpster enclosure details and the change to the sign fi�onting Highway 10. Saturn Development is in the process of working with Ramsey County to resolve the issue of combining the three lots into one for tax purposes. A February 25, 1998 meeting with the RCWD is scheduled to resolve the stormwater drainage details. All conditions of the CUP have been met, with the exception of the 10 percent of the property, excluding setback requirements. The Planning Commission indicated the property already had an extraordinary amount of setback from Highway 10 and the greenspace therein could apply toward the 10 percent, thereby fulfilling the requirement. Associate Ericson indicated it is staffs recommendation to Approve Resolution 535-98 recommending approval of the development review request made by Saturn Development Company, with the following stipulations: ___ _ --- -- -- - -. : �--- - Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998 Speciat Meeting Page 7 1. Prior to the City Council's review, show RCWD stormwater drainage requirements if they exist. 2. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall accomplish the following: a. Obtain access and grading permits from MnDOT and Ramsey County, if required, and provide proof of such permit or permission to the City. b. Obtain a RCWD permit c. Remove the two incidental directional signs from the County Road H-2 right of way. d. Enter into a development agreement with the City. Chairperson Peterson stated there was a miscalculation on the percentage of impervious surface area. He suggested correcting this number before the plan is approved. Darvvin Lindahl, Saturn Development's representative, told the Commission the issue of conforming to the RCWD requirements is being resolved. He added the total amount of impervious surface is the same or may be even less than the existing development. Taking this into account, there might not be a need for on-site stormwater retention. Chairperson Peterson opened the floor to the public for question regarding the Saturn Development. No questions or comments were considered from the public. Motion/Second: BrasaemleBrooks, to recommend approval ofResolution 535-98, recommending approval of the development review request made by Saturn Development Company, with the stipulations as stated. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 7. Planning Case No. 507-97 2625 Highway 10, 7715-7761 Eastwood Road Applicant: TOLD Development, for Walgreen's Discussion Regarding Walgreen's Development Request, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. : .. - ---�,�-.. _ �_ -- _- . :. .�- � ----_----� }�,� =_-- --�: - �� ---- -- -1 _ �>'----- - --__ _.__.� .,. 1�._- Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting February 18, 1998 Page 8 Associate Ericson addressed the Commission and citizens stating the Planning Commission is charged with the task of deciding whether or not it would be appropriate to rezone residential properties and amend the comprehensive plan to allow for the development of a Walgreen's store at the northeast c�rner of Highway 10 and County Road I. He added, the staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission with regard to drafting a resolution recommending either approval or denial of the rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment request. Ass+ncia$�e Erecson gave a background review of the proposal as follows: TOLD Development has purchase agreements in force for the properties located at 2625 highway 10, and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road. The property fronting highway 10 at this Iocation is owned Uy the City while the four single-family properties along Eastwood road are under separate ownership. The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, major subdivision and development review for the stated properties. In addition, the applicant requests the street bisecting these parcels(Eastwood Road) be vacated and replace with a cul-de-sac. Th� current zoning is split with the City-owned parcel zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential and the parcels on Eastwood Road being zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The proposed zoning is B-2, Neighborhood Commercial, which would allow the Walgreen use or similar uses such as financial institutions, office building, floral shop, hardware store or off-sale liquor sales. It is sta$'s recommendation to continue the open discussion process to a future meeting or meetings. The Planning Commission is being asked to provide direction to staff and the developer if additional information is needed. Commissioner Obert observed the absence of comments that address the citizen's concerns in regards to property values. A second issue, as discussed in an earlier Planning Commission meeting, was researching the City's police reports in order to get some kind of factual basis for assessing the traffic accident occurrences in the area of the development. Obert added, as did the other Commissioners, that no matter which way the decision goes on the development, the City would not be able to please all of the residents affected by this project. It is very critical to the success of the project that the discussions that take place in regard to the Walgreen project be based on fact and not emotion, Obert said. Associate Ericson responded by saying the accident information reqiiested is being obtained from the State. Bob Cunningham, TOLD Development, addressed the property value issue. He told the Commission he is willing to sit down with the affected property owners on an individual basis to work out their specific issues whether those issues be landscaping, drainage or compensation amounts. Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998 Special Meeting Page 9 Commissioner Obert re-emphasized the need for an independent unbiased real estate � appraiser. Gayla Keyes, 7730 Greenwood Drive, told the Commission that she has hired an independent real estate agent to assess her property. This person told her that her property would decrease in value. Cecelia Brownell, 7730 Greenwood Drive, told the Commission that the real estate agent had indicated the property would drop in value between $4,000-$14,000 dollars. She added she does not want the development in the neighborhood. '�erry Moses asked if the appraisal was done by a certified appraiser, and continued by telling the Commission that there is a difference be�veen a real estate agent and an MAI appraiser. He said real estate agents are held to lower standards that an MAI appraiser. He suggested hiring an MAI appraiser to do the work instead of a real estate agent. Director Jopke reminded the Commission and the meeting attendees that it is very important to keep in mind what the "big picture" is. He asked, "How can the staff provide the Commission, Developer and citizens with the type of information that is being requested?" He agreed with Mr. Cunningham's statement that it is very hard to quantify the effect that a development of the type will have on the surrounding neighborhood. Jopke stated the staffwould make every attempt to locate information that is relevant to the situation and in turn forward that information to the appropriate people. Chairperson Peterson asked Benshoof and Associate's representative, Michael Chen to comment on the report that SEH had made regarding the traffic study. Michael Chen stated if you asked five different engineers the same question, most likely you'd get five different answers because of the way the information is collected. Benshoof and Associates gathered their information from different sources than SEH. He added that the differences in the two firm's figures were very minute. Mr. Cunningham added, Walgreen's is a neighborhood retailer, and draws its clientele from the immediate surrounding areas. The majority of the customers are live within 1. mile radius of the store. Chairperson Peterson asked Chen to summarize what the traffic study was indicating. Mr. Chen told the Commission the tra�c study indicated the overall impact of the Walgreen's Development is not expected to have a significant negative impact on traffic to the a$'ected neighborhood with the closing of Eastwood Drive. Mr. Johnson stated he has lived in the neighborhood for 29 years, before the shopping center was developed, before any of the commercial developments on this section of j-- ' _ __�� _ � ' �._� __��, _� t�.�::-,:_:�_ `:i ._� _ �_----- ----- =`� - ry-'�_.-___- �' e�---•�zi _ � ---- --__ � - --' -�-- - � ^ I � I Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998 Special Meeting Page 10 Highway 10 came into being. He suggested dividing County Road I so that traffic could enter the Walgreen facility from the left only. This would prevent cars coming down Eastwood from turning into the facility and causing a traffic bottleneck in this area. Associate Ericson told Johnson Ramsey County had received a copy of the development plan for informational purposes. The City is looking for some typ� of input from the Coun-ry for the Walgr�en development. 1VIr. Cunningham told the Commission as the developer he would be reluctant to accept the developm�nt condition that there be a right-in right-out turn scenario established for Countiy Road I. Assoceate �ricson told the Commission it might not be the City's choice because of the fact that County Road I is a count�j road. He added the City would not force this type of a condition on the developer or the site plan. Mr. �he�n added the spacing between Walgreen's main acc�ss, the Mounds View Cenier access, and the Highway 10 intersection all conform to the spacing specifications that have been established by MnDOT. Chairperson Peterson commented the light timing cycle on Highway 10's tra.ffic signals should be modified to improve the traffic flow through Mounds View. Chairperson I'eterson suggested the discussion get back to the subject of the "big picture," this being commercial development versus residential on the corner properties that are being considered for the Walgreen development. He added there are some early leanings that have surfaced in the community meetings. It seems like the citizens want any commercial developments to take place on the Highway 10 corridor and any residential developments to take place off of the Highway 10 comdor. The City needs to improve its tax base. Commissioner Obert, again, emphasized the importance of addressing the question of decreasing property values and addressing the traffic safety issues within the City. Commissioner Brasaemle readdressed the question: "Is this the appropriate piece of properiy for his development?" He said he did not have a good answer for this question and probably wouldn't have one until after the ne� Comprehensive Plan Update meeting, where this particular piece of property was going to be discussed in regards to its fit in the overall Comprehensive Plan. Chairperson Peterson told the Commission one of the comments th�e citizens have been making at the community meetings concerning the Comprehensive Plan Update is they have no interest in having any more commercial businesses along County Road I. The citizens are saying that nobody should be forced out of their homes on Highway 10 to � : _: : - , _ _ . . . . —. � : . ______ _ �_ ____ . :. : __ _ _ __ _ - z--� ---- -- - � � ------- i= , : _ �_ �.� _ _ . Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998 Special Meeting Page 11 accommodate more commercial business. The question was posed to each of the Commissioner: Do you have any strong feelings one way or the other in regards to the Walgreen Development location? Commissioner Obert sad that the development would be in the Highway 10 corridor, as the citizens have requested, and he tended to be in favor of the location. Cammissioner Johnston agreed and added that making Eastwood a cul-de-sac wou.Ic� improve the traffic conditions of the area. Commissioner Brasaemle told the Corrunission at this time he does not have stroilg feelings about the issue. He said he needed more time and more information in order to form a sound opinion. Director Jopke asked the Commission if there is some information that the staff could provide to make the issue more clear. �ommissioner Brasaemle requested the Co�znty's traf�ic information on County Road I. Commissioner Obert agreed and added th�re is � need %r the proper real estate appraisal of the affected properties. Associate Ericson reminded the Commissio�t the r�eact Comprehensive Plan Update meeting is scheduled for March 11, 1998, �o be hel�i �t the Edgewood School. The fa�u� will be on District No. 2. Chairperson Peterson stated three agenda items for the next Planning Commission meeting: Property value appraisal 2. Traffic issues 3. livability of the development area 8. Stati Reports/Information a. Planning Commissioner Journal Publication The Commissioners acknowledged receipt of same. b. Recap of February 11, 1998 Community Forum Meeting . � - _ � ; . � �.� ' �= -i - -�� ---- � _ _ � _. - - -- . --., � � �a i �t Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting 9. 10. February 18, 1998 Page 12 D�rector Jopke requested that the team leaders of the round table discussions turn in the responses to the discussion agendas so the final report can be put together. Commissioner Brasaeanle stated a list of discussion generating questions would have helped his group focus on specific issues relating to the Comprehensive Plan Update. Several of the Commissioner stated that they enjoyed the open form platform because it gave their group fewer boundaries for discussion. Chairp�rson and Planning Commissioners flt.eports No Chairperson or Planning Commissioners Reports were considered. Adjournnnent to Ager►da Meeting There being no further business before the Special meeting of the Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Recording Secretary � i;..%,p MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION March 18, 1998 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE A�IINUTES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Approval of Minutes: February 4, 1998 (Regular) February 18, 1998 (Special) 5. Planning Case No. 513-98 Property Involved: 8265 Spring Lake Road � Consideration of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a Four Foot Variance to the Required 30-foot Front-Yard Setback. Applicant: Preferred Builders, Inc. (This item was tabled at the March 4, 1998, meeting) 6. Planning Case No. 507-97 Property Involved: 2625 Highway 10, 7715 - 7761 Eastwood Road Consideration of Resolution No. 536-98 Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Request for Walgreen's Development Applicant: Told Development Company 7. Planning Case No. 515-98 Property Involved: 5394 Edgewood Drive Discussion Regarding Development Request for the Mounds View Community Center (formerly Bel-Rae Ballroom) Applicant: City of Mounds View 8. Staf�Reports/Information Items a. Recap of March 11, 1998, Community Forum Meeting (second of three . forums - verbal report) 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 10. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting **************************************** APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717-4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. ***********�************************�*� . _ � . ; _ _, _ - --- . . .. _---. , Y . :.. . .._ _. _ - --- ��-,-_- �.-. �� - - � --�,-. �� ..�_ � _�_�. . . MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSTON March 18, 1998 (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) AGENDA MEETIN AGENDA Review of Minutes: a. March 4, 1998 (Regular) 2. Meeting Adjournment _ , - . � . � E .,F � � _ _ --- �: � � .— . � � _.., � I Plannin Com.n�issio g n Memo TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Jim Ericson, Planning Associate SUBJECT: Walgreens Development Proposal DATE: March 18, 1998 Background Information; At your last meeting on March 4, 1998, the Planning Commission was presented with supplemental information regarding the request made by TOLD Development Company to rezone residential properties and amend the comprehensive plan to allow for the construction of a Walgreens store at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and County Road I. This information concerned (1) the accident data for both County Road I between Long Lake Road and Highway 10 and data for the intersection of Highway 10 and County Road I, (2) impact to values of adjacent properties, and (3) an update regarding the applicant's discussion with the adjoining property owners. The following represents a summary of that information. (1) Accident Data. Discussions with the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer have revealed that the number of accidents on County Road I between Long Lake Road and Highway 10, excluding those occumng at either intersection, numbered only six during the last four years. Of these, four involved right-angle impacts from vehicles leaving Moundsview Square. Regarding accident data for the intersection of highway 10 and County Road I, a printout was generated for an almost two year period, beginning January 1, 1996 to November 12, 1997. There were 18 recorded accidents reported by either Mounds View Police or the State Patrol. Given the number of vehicles passing this intersection daily, the number of accidents that have occurred is relatively insignificant. The following represents some of the "mitigating circumstances" associated with the accidents. • 4 of the accidents occurred between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am • 5 of the accidents involved wet, snowy, icy or slushy road conditions • 2 of the accidents invo(ved alcohol • 1 accident involved a bicycle s 1 accident involved a fixed object--the traf�ic semaphore f _ ._ i -� ��r �. ___„ __., _. _ _ � v ;, _ _ ,. ------ - --------- - - - - -- --- � _ �^� „ ��. . Planning Commission Report TOLD Development Rezoning & Comp Plan Amendment March 18, 1998 Page 2 (2) Impact to Values of Adjacent Properties. Staff contacted two certified real estate appraisers to answer this question. Both responded that there would be some impact to adjacent properties, although the extent would be difficult to quantify without perfornung a thorough appraisal process. The important variables are the type of use proposed, the existing character of the surrounding area, location to major traf�c arteries, setbacks, buffering, as well as other less critical criteria. To determine if there are any studies, research or data regarding the introduction of a commercial use into a residential area, staffcontacted a representative oithe American Planning Association's (APA) research division and requested that they send us any pertinent or relative information. While we had not received the results of their search by the time this report was written, we are confident that the information will arrive prior to the meeting on the 18th. Staffwill deliver this information to the Commissioners immediately upon its receipt. (3) Update Regarding the Applicant's Discussion with the Adjoining P�•operty Owners. The applicant has indicated that personal meetings have been conducted with all of the adjoining property owners and a cash settlement offer has been extended to them. It is not clear at this time whether or not any of the property owners have accepted the applicant's offer. The applicant will address this issue. New Information: Access Points. I have attached letters from Dan Soler, Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, and Scott Peters, MnDOT Senior Transportation Planner. Ramsey County will require that the developer improve the intersection of County Road I and Highway 10 by construction a right-turn lane on westbound County Road I onto Highway 10. From the County's perspective, the addition of the turning lane would alleviate enough of the congestion at the intersection and prevent stacking of vehicles beyond the proposed Walgeens access on County Road I. Dan Soler indicated that without the right turn lane, the median on County Road I would probably need ta be e�ctended back beyond the entrance to Walgreens, preventing full ingress and egress from the site. MnDOT's position with regard to the proposed right-in right-out access onto Highway 10 is that it will not allow for an access at this location due to (1) its close pro�mity to the intersection of the highway and county road and (2) because the property has an alternative means of access to � , : - --- � = r` � ._ _______ _ _ __ _ _ �_ � v__ _ _ _ , _ _ , Planning Corrunission Report TOLD Development Rezoning & Comp Plan Amendment March 18, 1998 Page 3 the property via County Road I. Staffhas not had any discussions with MnDOT or Mr. Peters to ascertain if there are any compromises that could be worked out with regard to the access point. Traffic Calming on Greemvood Drive. Staff has enlisted the assistance of Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works, to assess the possibility of adding some type of traffic calming measures to Greenwood Drive. This idea has been discussed at previous meetings as a possible means to both reduce and slow down traffic passing through the neighborhood. Mr. IJlrich has indicated that of the many possibilities, a mid-block diversion that would create a slight S-curve in the road might be acceptable. Staff is seeking the input of the City Engineer on this possibility. Analysis: Staff has presented the Planning Commission with two items for consideration at this meeting if the Commission so desires. Resolution 536-98 recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to the City Council while Ordinance No. 614 is the vehicle by which the properties are rezoned to reflect the B-2, Limited Business classification. Approval of the Ordinance can be done by a simple motion. One of staf�s concerns with the rezoning is what would happen if, after the rezoning was approved, the applicant for whatever reason did not follow through with his plans to develop the site. The City would be left with four non-confornung single-family homes. This can be prevented simply by not publishing the Ordinance in the official City newspaper until after all of the other hurdles have been cleared, such as the major subdivision, vacation of Eastwood Road and the major subdivision. If the ordinance does not get published, it does not become effective. At this point, other than not knowing the results of the APA research results, staff is not aware of any other concerns that have not yet been addressed with regard to the proposed rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment. If the developer has worked out a settlement with the adjacent properties, then the results of the APA research become less of a iactor in a decision on these requests. Last, the date by which a final decision would need to be reached on these requests is May 29, 1998. Recommendation: Staff recommends approving Planning Commission Resolution 536-98, a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a comprehensive plan amendment to change the designations of the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road to NC, Neighborhood Commercial, allow for the construction of a Walgreens Drug Store. _ _ _ _; , . ;. _. __ ^ � p ' — --------- �----------- -- ' "_ = :, : . �._ _ � �--____ __ �..�. ._�_ _ . . . _ _ . _� �_ _____�. - i � �t� a Planning Commission Report TOLD Development Rezoning & Comp Plan Amendment March 18, 1998 Page 4 2. Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission move approval of draft Ordinance No. 614, an ordinance amending the City's official zoning map by rezoning the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7'161 Eastwood Road to a B-2, Limited Business District classification. Attachmnents: 1. Letter from Scott Peters, MnDOT, dated 3/2/98 2. Letter from Dan Soler, Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, dated 3/4/98 3. Ordinance No. 614 (draft) 4. Planning Commission Resolution 536-98 N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�.507-971507-97.PC4 � � �ry,� �. Q� �ti.:h�Q.c. i,� � L � V'...� -, _ �. � .� ,_. . . -�' W �-"-".1 + �J � �� - n r,� YJ- �� `�"lA liV �i� ' w i'` v ✓J /lk/•� � i�-Yl� �'x�' r"' 1 v � �� `-� °`- '.'`��--� • - c.,�c.✓x, �v� �� : v�'a�"� ( �, � j•�.u. i. �'�`v� E-v7,� c.k-� �.v2 :�� t � e�Y c e. ��- t7' t� y a�-�. ux LLw�- J� v�'"� - �� t u, v 1 rt.�. �,1�. `� I �'J Y'�Lr�.�L"� i..LS�-G 7J � '� i," 1�_ c� c�,h ::;-u� . , '''`i I �'� ;�, � � A C:i-% 1. .,-�t ��J�.� ._-v—JC 5, ti c� w �-��- ,�'- uvh. C,'1` �� 1.... I�CL 4J� � �-%I�V �(� f 7 �_„�.Z j S c . a�-� 1.� ��' lJ � �� , � �� -� - � �� ti,D � W �-� s, '� [•.�- J�" s� I� � z - (� '�`YIiJ G�T (.y � i1�L�c� ', �r �!x V C'!' r(i �Mh.t 1��.1/L :, �A.�i..L `iUl'1 . �?: V V 1 l..i'� SL.�_ t✓r�.�l�`P� ,� V ' � "1 ,�.U'� � � � Q{ . . 5 . � �. �C-t, '-G�✓ ��R 1Z.tl� � �.� �"_� l.L � � C��, �""t fitirC"��.ea''� ' �'� YTu,�u�o .70-� fiei, J�NNESpl 1 � L ! � > n D � �.yf o► ��S g' Minnesota Depanrnent of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 82 Roseville, MN 55113 March 2, 1998 Jim Ericson City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 5� 112 Dear Jim Ericson: SUBJECT: TOLD Development Company Site Plan Review S98-015 ;I,�C�C��OC�1� I �I : J YIAR 0 6 T998 ; �� ' n. 1r"i-�:v,.--� Northeast Quadrant of Trunk Highway (TI� 10 and County Road I Mounds View, Ramsey County C.S. 6204 The Minnesota Department of Tzansportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the TOLD Development Company site plan. We find the plan acceptable for further development with consideration of the llowing comments. We will not allow the proposed access to TH 10 because of safety concerns. The proposed access is only 150 feet from the TH 10/County Road I intersection. A distance of 480 feet is required to accommodate a right turn lane with a taper for this access. The site has adequate and safe access via County Road I. Regional policy developed by the Metropolitan Council discourages direct access to minor arterials from individual properties. The emphasis of TH 10 is to serve mobility as opposed to direct land access. Access to County Road I is more appropriate. Regional policy advocates land access management and control as tools in ensuring that minor artenials continue to operate efficiently and effecrively. As one goal of the City's Focus 2000, initial highway corridor improvements have focused on a bike/pedestrian trail adjacent to TH 10. The future trail and safety of its users must strongly be evaluated when considering pIans with direct properiy access to TH 10. We may require a NIn/DOT stormwater drainage permit for the proposed development. Please submit a�ading/drainage plan for our review prior to site construction. This plan must include hydraulic computations and drainage area maps, showing existing and proposed conditions and addressing 100-year storms. Existing drainage patterns and rates of nu�off affecting TH 10 right of way must be perpetuated. Any questions regarding Mn/DOT drainage concerns may be directed to Gene Bovy of our Water Resources Section at 779- �0�3. An equal opportunity employer ' .. �r___1_+f�-..._ i-�i ��<��f �.�_��'_..`_ __.� _ L w��. ��.. . ��ti.�_ �__��. i � �` � _�� __cr_a� IC� - _ �1_`l.L% j�y�'�' . '��. .. ��.� _. . . .: .�� -._c . � r� . , _ , _ .-.� .-�.L�. �.�... -., i�•�'i> . E Jim Ericson March 2, 1998 page two Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way will require an approved Mn/DOT permit. The permit required depends upon the nature of the proposed work. Bill Warden of our Pernuts Section may be contacted at 582-1443 for additional information regarding the permit process. Please contact me at 582-1654 with any questions regarding this review. Sincerely, Scott Peters Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison c: Dan Soler, Ramsey County Traffic Engineer Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council Transportation � Department of Public Works Paul L. Kirkwold, P,�., Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 �n�tsEYCOUN7Y St. Paul, MN 55102 •(612) 266-2600 • Fax 266-2615 March 4, 1998 Mr. Jim Ericson City of Mounds View 2401 Highway xp Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Dear Mr. Ericson:. ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS 3377 N. Rice Street Shoreview, MN 55126 (612) �84-9104 • Fax 482-5232 IQC�C��CVI� � ; � ; MAft 0 S tQq� ; � �6 d�.,,�.�-- i Y The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the plans for the Walgreens Development proposed along County Road I east of TH 10. The plan shows removal of the Eastwood Road city street access onto County Road I and the construction of one fu11 paccess point onto County Road I at the east end of the roperty The County has reviewed the development plans and the traffic study prepared for this development. The County would .Iike to make the following comments regardin.g the proposed access onto County Road I. 1. The County supports the closure of Eastwood Road onto County Road I..This city street is located very close to Highway 10 and poses operational problems at the intersection. 2. The traffic study concludes that the access from Walgreens onto County Road I will not negatively impact traffic. The eastbound left turn into and out of the site will operate at an acceptable level of service. The County has reviewed this and concurs that the median will not have to be extended along County Road I past this drivewa project�d number of left turns is low and should not result in backing up of eastbound vehicles. 3. The report states �hat a crueuing analysis indicates that westbound traffic will "hardly ever back u'� driveway if constructed 175 feet from Highway lpst This does not agree with information provided by HDR in a Minnesota Department of Transportation Stud study concludes that the westbound queue will beh310nfeeT in the am peak and 314 feet in the pm peak by the year 2005 with the existing geometrics. This will result in a back up past the proposed entrance during both peak hours. Ninnesota's F'Irst Home gnle Connty DtInIPA nn �..�...�>n ..,.......�. ""-_ " " . — = -- - : _� �--.. ---=-- - . -: : � : . ? � _�_ r� = . -� � ------ -�--�- --- � - - - - The Mn/DOT study identifies construction of a westbound right turn lane on County Road I at Highway 10 as part of the geometric improvements to the Highway 10 corridor. Ramsey County recommends that the construction of this righ� turn lane be part of the Walgreens development. The City o£ Mounds View should re constxuct this turn lane as a onditione of e�he pCityts approval. 4. The report sta�es �hat the construction of the TH 118/610 connector will divert signiticant traffic awa Highway 10. This is e Y from the connector; howeverPected with the initial opening of return to its original leve lin the�futurels� expected to 5• The developer will be required to obtain access .permits from Ramsey County £or access and construction on Count Road T. Y If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to give me a call at 482-5209. Sincerely, '--.. � c�'t:e� I • � Daniel E. Soler, p,E, Traffic Engineer ,�, � �: �: �. . . , ___ _ _ _ ORDINANCE NO. 614 CITY OF MOUNDS V�W COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF 1VIINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF �'TVE PARCELS ABUTTING EASTWOOD ROAD FROM R-1 AND R-3 TO B-2 FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD COIVIlVIERCIAL USE TO BE LOCATED NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD I AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 10 AND AMENDING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Appendix A of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled "Specific Rezonings", the City's Official Zoning Map and zoning district classification are hereby amended as follows: 1. The zoning district classification of the following described real properties are amended from R-1, Single Family Residential to B-2, Limited Business: S%2 Lot 51, Spring Lake Park Hillview (PIN # 06-30-23-44-0032) N'/2 Lot 50, Spring Lake Park Hillview (PIN # 06-30-23-44-0031) S'/z Lot 50, Spring Lake Park Hillview (PIN # 06-30-23-44-0030) Lot 49, Spring Lake Park Hillview (PIN # 06-30-23-44-0029) 2. The zoning district classification of the following described real property is amended from R-3, Medium Density Residential to B-2, Limited Business: Lot 78, Spring Lake Park Hillview (PIN # 06-30-23-44-0051) SECTION 2. This Ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 13th day of April, 1998. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 27th day of April, 1998. _ ; ; - �� _ , _ - �_� .� ..�.:.�.�::.-��....�. c_�i:..�,___ -. -----., t�__ �.�_u�__=��' �--==� ---�=� � .�_ �-- f'----- -- � I Ordinance 614 Page 2 Duane McCarty, Mayor ATTEST: Charles Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert Long, City Attorney N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DE VCASES\507-9'7�TOLD2.ORD -� � : _ , . . . ._: � �� . ._ _ . . . : � ._ � � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMIVIISSION RF�OLUTION NO. 536-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF n�IINNF,SOTA RFSOLUTION RECONIlI2ENDING APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMEN'.0 FROM LOW DENSITY AND ffiGH DENSITY RFSIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2625 HIGHWAY 10 AND 7715-7761 EASTWOOD ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. 507-97. WHEREAS, TOLD Development Company has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment which would change the designation of the property located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road from high and low density residential to neighborhood commercial; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties aze described as follows: The South % of Lot 51, All of Lot S0, Lot 49 and Lot 78, Spring Lake Park Hillview, Ramsey County, Minnesota WI�REAS, Section 401.09 of the Mounds View Municipal Code sta.tes that the City has adopted the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mounds View, dated 1979, as its plan for future development and growth within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View adopted the 1979 Comprehensive Plan in 1982 by Resolution No. 1467; and, VVHEREAS, the 1979 Comprehensive Plan places the subject properties in District 6 and designates these properties for both high and low density residential development as indicated by Exhibit 1, attached herewith; and, WHEREAS, both the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning map designate these properties for residential development; and, WI3EREAS, there has been much community sentiment regarding the inappropriateness of future residential development fronting Highway 10; and, WI�REAS, in a study completed by SRF Consulting in April, 1997, the property at 2625 Highway 10 was deemed to be too restrictive for stand-alone development due to access limitations and size constraints; and, _ _. . _.�:;i L � C�'��------ ----� i�.. � : w=__.. _ �l f�-- :z- __ ,. �:- -- - . _ � . . ..:, :_ , � , _ _ „ � .._ _ I Planning Commission Resolution No. 536-98 March 18, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, the SRF study indicated that development potential of the property located at 2625 Highway 10 would be enhanced if combined with adjacent properties; and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that the proposed amendment is consistent with the general land use goals and policies containerl in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: Goal 1. Develop a cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatibility and functional relationships among activities and uses. The change from high density and low density residential to neighborhood commercial will allow for the commercial development of the northeast corner of the Highway 10 and County Road I intersection, an intersection that already supports three corners of higher intensity commercial uses--a Hardees Restaurant and the Moundsview Square Shopping Center, a SuperAmerica gas station and convenience store, and a Burger King Restaurant. Given the high traffic counts at this intersection, it would seem more appropriate to use the land fox commercial rather than residential development. The proposed amendment is in keeping with the community goal of limiting commercial development to the Highway 10 corridor. The neighborhood commercial designation is the least common designation used in the comprehensive plan, representing less than one-quarter of one percent of the properties in the City. The proposed use would be set back approximately 130 feet from neighboring residential properties and separated by a minimum 70 feet of greenspace and other physical buffering. The neighborhood commercial designation, as opposed to the more intensive highway commercial designation, would in itself be a buffer to the adjoining residendal properties. Goa12. Maintain and, where necessary, upgrade land uses and environmental quality. The policy under this goal directs attention to protecting integrated use districts (residential neighborhoo+ds, commercial centers, industrial parks) from penetration by through traffic. By virtue of its pro�cimity to Highway 10 and County Road I, the residential district already experiences a penetration of through traffic. Redeveloping the subject properties for a commercial use will add to the existing traffic in this residential district. The tradeoff, however, is that Eastwood Road would no longer feed into the Highway 10 / County Road I intersection thus eliminating a notable point of conflict and with the addition of a right turn lane onto Highway 10 from eastbound County Road I, the overall functioning of the intersection will be significantly improved. Goal 3. Preserve and protect property values. . _ :��-.--. w ` � �...- ---- --- � . ---- _ - ---_--- .a�. �._ _ ._ .— __._�_ .7 .__. � Planning Commission Resolution No. 536-98 March 18, 1998 Page 3 It is hoped that in the long run, property values will increase with the introduction of a lower-intensity neighborhood commercial use at the corner of the most traveled intersection of the City. The positive impact to the City's tax base will serve to lessen the tax burden to residential properties across the City. Goa14. Ensure community development is compatible with features of the natural environment and is accommodated without destroying desirable environmental features and natural amenides. Other than a few mature trees present on the subject properties, there are no natural environmental features or amenities that will be threatened or degraded as a result of the proposed development. The plans for development will include a system for capturing stormwater run-off for the subject properties which should improve conditions for properties immediately adjacent to the development. In so doing, the quality of the stormwater than now runs untreated into the City's sewer system will be significantly � improved. ,; Goa15. Prevent development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities (utilities, parldng, access, etc.) The properties are located on Highway 10, a principal arterial and the major thoroughfare in Mounds View, and County Road I, a minor �rterial street. While adequate opportunity for access to the development is available on�o County Road I, access may not be possible onto Highway 10 because of the limited highway frontage. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT� will need to review and approve any requests for access onto Highway 10. Water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, gas and electric lines are available. Comments from the Blaine/Spring Lake Park/Mounds View Fire Department regarding access to the subject properties as well as to the properties on a dead-end Eastwood Road indicate that as long as there is a sufficient turning radius at the end of the cul-de-sac, no reduction in the level of service or response time would be expected. The parlcing requirements would be examined during the development review. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following additional findings that the proposed. amendment is consistent with the commercial goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: Goal 1. Commercial development shall be considered in order to provide a broad tax and expanded employment base within Mounds View. Redesignating the subject properties to allow for the development of a specific neighborhood commercial use will increase the City's tax base ten-fold and creaie 35 positions, more than Planning Commission Resolution No. 536-98 March 18, 1998 Page 4 -- _ _ _ : - _ _ - _ E_ �__. a half of which would be full-time positions. Many of the jobs created would be filled by Mounds View residents. Goal Z. Provide safe, convenient, attractive, and accessible commercial development within Mounds View. The development proposed at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and County Road I would be put through an intensive review process by which all aspects of the building design and site layout would be examined. The proposed use would be buffered from the adjacent residential areas by an expanse of greenspace, plantings and a fence. In terms of convenience, a neighborhood commercial use at this location would give those residents living north of County Road I and east of Highway 10 the ability to walk for certain goods and services without having to cross either thoroughfare, which are viewed as major barriers to pedestrian and other non-vehicular traffic. To encourage pedestrian use, the City would require that a sidewalk be extended to the site from Long lake Road on the north side of County Road I and there would be a pedestrian access from Eastwood Road to the north. =�-v, 1-+,.Q � Goal 3. Major retail sales and services will be developed in planned and concentrated centers. ��{ �� . � r.,.'�, . Now that the majority of the available vacant land within the City is either developed or is slated for development, this goal may not be as applicable as infill development becomes more prevalent. However, if one considers that by locating on the fourth corner of an intersection already populated with higher intensity commercial uses, then this goal is met. The development will provide for its own stormwater retention and treatment system. Goal 4, The development of small, neighborhood convenience stores will be limited to locations which best serve residential areas without impairing residential development. Any development proposed for this site will be put through an intensive review process through which compatibility with the character of the sunounding neighborhood will be strongly encouraged. The access to the proposed use will be convenient for the surrounding community and non-vehicular traffic will be encouraged through the installation of pathways and sidewalks. VVHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan land use map designation for District 6 is proposed to be amended as shown on Exhibit 2, attached herewith. , � ,_ � �,� ,, � � , ��,�. . ;: � � , . �!%pk,v✓'�,�,� i� l�. V`'�� 69'Vl �G'��1"Ut.v� � LL f-+� �_ I- • _. �a. � _ i , n � . � _ 4 . : - _ � . � _ �. _ - : - — — _ _. �,-_ _ _ �..'—= - ��-- ----n. .— -- - " - s�- I Planning Commission Resolution No. 536-98 March 18, 1998 Page 5 NOW, TFTF.RF.FORE, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate the south 'h of Lot 51 and all of Lots 50, 49 and 78 to NC, Neighborhood Commercial. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 18th day of March, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N: \DATA\GROUPSICOMDEV �DEVCASES�507-971536-98PC.RES Exhibit 1. � I'lann in Dist�ic� 6 g Existing CompYehensive Plan Designations MD �� I rdan Aven LD > o Q Y �o m � � �� N MD `� � h`�a � �/ � � � o � � = LD � C � � W � �.C: (� C -- Places of Worship 0 HD -- High Density Residential � LD — Low Density Residential ,� MD -- Medium Density Residential � P -- Parks LD \ � �� LD � S-- Schools Date of Map: March 18, 1998 � � � 0 � � Y � J � C O J N Exhibit 2. Plannin Dist�ict 6 g P�oposed Com,p�ehensive Plan Desrgnatrons _._ .. ... - -- . _ . � � � : ; : � qrdan Avenue '; _- --_- -� -1- , . � _ . -.-.-. _.. ._. .... .._ _. , __ ___. � � --�. �. .. .. _ -- - � - ------- ' - --- �; --- ___ ; . . �: l . -- --- I --- - -. __ , � ; . --- ---- --' �--� � 7- ._..._.. p! "--.-.__..__._'._..._._�_�_.J c --.,__..,.�_�� _ _ _._._.--'. -`--- -- ' - � LY: ' ' � ' —'-- -- . " � ' � . ---. .. _. � , �_ T. _ , .' � __ • ----_ -.-_.. ., .. - • --�--- - -- - , -p� I � - — --_ - h-----� i • -- - ------- --C• -- '._.__. --�• _..----�- --_.____. ; � : _�. , --.... .:----` -•- ---- --- --- . r_'i ,__.1, N: ,..--� -------�--^ . -�.�. ' ..y _ .---�- •. •-'---- ----�-. � ' , � � ; � , ---- � � - �---' —.: � i I �' i ` ' -- -- y r.....i !; ------•---- � ._... ,----- --o. ---- ---.--- -�p ` �- - --- . -- — ,-- - ----�-; r f �....J ._. , . � . ' ' �._ , __ � . . ��w� i - _..1.� � "" � I � .� _._' ._ .. • . _ ��. ........ , .-�� _ _ � . 1 � �: ;�� .. --� � � ' ; c� � � . hen+vod Roact � ; . . __ Mp�-'� .__ .. .._ _�.---. ..� _ _ - _-_�- - - - � � . . :-- ----- ..:. �_ _..:_ __._.1 :- _ , ._ ' i ! , � : � - ' . .- --. _ ...--- � __ --= ._.,.. � ._ , � ; i �o -" > • I , ; - . �..> _._ m -- - — -j �-- — � '� �, : _ _._.----� . � �� °-__ . �° _ _, o-__�. -- ; , -- -- > -- - � . ;.-- � b---�- � � -- FQ Y �-_ t b - MD;�---:-- _ � . : : ----- �-- — ; o -- �---- - , � � ---- -. - i I � _. _ •---_. � � � �� _ . .� . � . � � - � �� ----' i . � �.� � '-� - �- � _ . ;_-- --'- � � v ' � i = - ___� m --- ' - ; �, o� - , _ -- � . _._..- , , _......--- - --- --- � --�---- - _ ----�-r--�,tr , �--�� _' 'wm --- � � D � _— -- - _.._. _._...__ _ _- . . :_. � ------- -------�-- - , : �--- , , . . , ' � �_._ -- -- � , . . -- . ---- ... --� ------; _.-----;----; � � i ; : i I— ,� � ------- -�--• -- 1--;:---- ------j .-^:;.. 7- _. -I �,- l --- '�,9' �---� � _ � � + � ---- -- ; _ — -. _ _ _ ` h J ^ .^..; f,� �i � ' '_ I _'_ I _a �� 'v Y .�. J ''_-_` ' � � . � �,y ----- ----- -- - .Hillv - . .. --. -- ---- - �aew Road , — , � .. ' ' ; , ` -� =-- ' _...! : --- O � � ` ---- ; --_-��'_ � -� - ----�-: - _—` - � MD.. _ �_ �—=_= � _- __=�==- � _-��_-_ � f � `�'`� �� --�-=- � '. - _._- -- --�� : _---`_ =- � C -- Church 0 HD -- High Density Residen4ial � LD -- Low Density Residential 0 MD -- Medium Density Residential � P - Park � S -- School 0 NC -- Neighborhood Commercial J Date of Map: March 18, 1998 -_=LD--_ � \ i � � c� O � Y �II J � C O N PLANNING C OMM�S SIOl�T MEr�ro To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Steve Dorgan, Housing Inspector Subject: Planning Case No. 513-98: Preferred Builders Variance Request Date: March 18, 1998 At the last Planning Commission meeting on March 4, the commission tabled the variance request by Preferred Builders to the March 18th regular meeting. The applicant offered a compromise which would reduce the requested variance to 4 feet instead of 7 feet. The commission requested the item be tabled so that staff could provide an additional resolution for consideration which approves a 4 foot variance request. Preferred Builders submitted the application requesting the proposed variance on January 30, 1998. According to Minnestota State Statutes, development proposals must receive formal action from the reviewing board within 60 days from the date of submittal. The 60 day time frame will expire on March 31, 1998. Therefore, action must be taken on the request at the March 18 regular Planning Commission meeting. As directed by the commission, attached are resolutions approving a 4 foot variance (Exhibit A), denying the requested 7 foot variance (Exhibit B) and approving the requested 7 foot variance (Exhibit C). Also enclosed are certificates of survey for both the 4 foot variance request (Exhibit D) and the 7 foot variance request (E�ibit E). Steve Dorgan Housing Inspector 717-4023 Exhibits: A) Planning Commission Resolution #532-98 (Approving 4 foot variance) B) Planning Commission Resolution #532-98 (Approving 7 foot variance) C) Planning Commission Resolution #532-98 (Denying 7 Foot variance) D) Certificate of survey showing proposed 4 foot variance E) Certificate of survey showing proposed 7 foot variance N:\DATA\GRO UPS\CO MDE V�D E VCA S ES1513-98�PC3 18.IvIEM EXHIBIT A NIOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. 532-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF R.�I�ISEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A 4 FOOT VA.RIA��fCE TO THE REQUTRED 30 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FROM A PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG ARDAIY AVENUE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAi�IILY HOME AT 826� SPRING LAKE ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. 513-98 WI�REAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Preferred Builders, Inc. to allow a 4 foot variance to the required 30 foot building setback from a public road right-of-way for the construction of a single family home at 8265 Spring Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is legally described as: The North 53 feet of the West 218 feet of Lot 34, and the South 27 feet of tfie West Z18 feet of Lot 35, all in Auditors Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County WI-�REAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with tliis request: l. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Building Front Elevation 4. Letter from the Applicant 5. Encroachment Map 6. Survey of Previous Home WHEREAS, the applicant requests a 4 foot variance to the requized 30 foot building setback from a public road as required in Section 1104.01, Subd. 3, of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the applicant presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission stating that the lot dimensions were substandard for a comer lot and that the proposed home cannot meet the setback requirements without a variance; and, WI-�REAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that homes in the surrounding neighborhood are comparable in size to the proposed home; and _.: _ - � .:_ r :. . : _ ,... Y Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-98 March 18, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant zn that the redevelopment of a substandard lot presents difficulties in the construction of the proposed 1,900 square foot home on the proposed lot as required by the Mounds View Economic Development Authority; and WHEREAS, granting this variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buiIdings in the same district in that the size of the proposed home is typical of the homes which currently e:cist in the surrounding neighborhood; and WI�REAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title and to other properties in the same zone in that the proposed home wauld encroach less than the home which had been previously located on the lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustrnent and Appeals approves the variance request of Preferred Builders, Inc. for a reduction in the building setback requirement to a public right-of-way from 30 feet to 26 feet for the construction of a single-family home at 8265 Spring Lake Road. Adopted this 1 Sth day of March, 1998 � �' ; t, ATTEST SEAL , :.�_�, � , ti,� �� N:�pATA1GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�513-98\532-3-98.RES ,� Jerry Peterson, Chairman Rick Jopke, . Community Development Director u� '._. _ i .. . .. _.. '__:._." ... ." '. .... . . " . ..: ." -":... . """. _ i = _ "" . .....' _"". . EXHIBIT B MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMNIISSION RESOLUTION NO. 532-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A 7 FOOT VARIAi�iCE TO THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FROM A PUBLIC ROA,D RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG ARDAN AVENUE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT 8265 SPRING LAKE ROA.D; PLANNING CASE NO. 513-98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Prefenred Builders, Inc. to allow a 7 foot variance to the required 30 foot building setback from a public road right-of-way for the construction of a single family home at 8265 Spring Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is legally described as: The Nortfi 53 feet o, f'the West 218 feet of Lot 34, and the South 2�feet of the West 218 feet of Lot 3S, a11 in Auditors Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County WHEREAS, the Planni.ng Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: . 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Building Front Elevation 4. Letter from the Applicant 5. Encroachment Map 6. Survey of Previous Hame WI�REAS, the applicant requests a 7 foot variance to the required 30 foot building setback from a public road as required in Secrion 1104.01, Subd. 3, of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WI�REAS, the applicant presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission stating that the lot dimensions were substandard for a comer lot and that the proposed home cannot meet the setback requirements without a variance; and, WI�REAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that homes in the surrounding neighborhood are comparable in size to the proposed home; and � _ . . _ __. ; �. -: _ .,_ �- `- - - _...:a ::� . l � _�: .� �i - � � --- - - - ° - -- - Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-98 March 18, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not resuIt from the actions of the applicant in that the redevelopment of a substandard lot presents difficulties in the construction of the proposed 1,900 square foot home on the proposed lot as requued by the Mounds View Economic Development Authority; and VV�IEREAS, granting this variance requested wiIl not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that the size of the proposed home is. typical of the homes which currently exist in the surrounding neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title and to other properties in the same zone in that the proposed home would encroach less than the home which had been previously located on the lot. NOW, TI�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Plaruung Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Preferred Builders, Inc. for a zeduction in the building setback requirement to a public right-of-way from 30 feet to 23 feet for the construction of a single-family home at 8265 Spri.ng Lake Road. Adopted this 13th day of March, 1998 Jezry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:\DATAIGROUPSICOMDEV�DEVCASESl513-981532-3-98.RES � ��-�"��.1 _ . (`. _.�... . _ _ _ .:� = t:.�l _ 1`..�_�_�_�_ �.�__-_._.. __ . . _ �. _ - - . C"�-_ ___ ... � a' ��=s-._� M.�_ -�.�A. . _ ia ,:s".- - .. _ �� --: � •�u i EXHIBIT C MOUNDS VIEW PLA.NI�IING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 532-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAIVIS�Y STATE OF MINNESOT� RESOLUTION DENYING A 7 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE R�QUIItED 30 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FRONI A PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG ARDA��i A'�ENUE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SP1GLE-FAMILY HOME AT 8265 SPRING LAKE ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. 513-98 �NHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Preferred Builders, Inc. to a11ow a 7 foot vaziance to the required 30 foot building setback from a public road right-of-way for the construction of a single family home at 3265 Spring Lake Road; and, VVF�REAS, this property is zoned R-1, Singie Family Residential District and is legally described as: The North S3 feet of the West 218 feet of Lot 34, and the South 27 feet of the West 218 feet of Lot 3S, all in Auditors Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County VV�IER.EAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: � 1. Planning App(ication 2. Location Map 3. Building Front Elevation 4. Letter from the Applicant 5. Encroachment Map 6. Survey of Previous Home WHEREAS, the applicant requests a 7 foot variance to the required 30 foot building setback from a public road as required in Section 1104.01, Subd. 3, of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the applicant presented a hazdship statement to the Plannuig Commission stating that the lot dimensions were substandard for a corner lot and that the proposed home cannot meet the setback requirements without a variance; and, WHEREAS, there are no e:ctraordinary or exceptional circumstances that apply to this properiy that would justify the �anting of this variance request; and, I� > _ = _ _ � s �. : _ . . ��--- -� .� � --� .� - i: __ -- = �. .. - - - _- -- - ,. Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-98 March 18, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the City Code does not deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district; and VV�REAS, the conditions which necessitate the variance request were known by the applicant prior to purchasing the property in that the applicant is not required to build a home at the proposed dimensions; and WHEREAS, granting this variance requested widl confer on the applicants a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that building setbacks from a public street require a 30 foot setback in the R-1 zoning district; and, WHEREAS, the variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title and. to other properties in the same zone in that the building setback would be 7 feet less than what is allowed by Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denies the variance request of Prefened Builders, Inc. for a reduction in the building setback requirement to a public right-of-way from 30 feet to 23 feet for the construction of a single-family home at 8265 Spnng Lake Road. Adopted this 18th day of February, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, eommuniiy Development D'uector SEAL N:IDATA\GROUPS�COMDEV�DEVCASES15 1 3-9 815 3 2-2-9 8.RES �'i��. -�� y��:�l��) 1�� PREFERREO BU[LDERS *�� * p�on��p �.�wo sunv�e�v+s • 1'EL:61? i80-?i�6 EXHIBIT D - 2422 Ent.rpr{s� Orfv. � ►�atdata H•Iqnta. AIN 551Zp (e�2} aet-1914 FAX:aaT-94as ,� en� *eer- n� LAHD �t.WNERS . WnsCME CwiEC15 �a4t� (9MN�55434 � * # * (612) 783-1a80 FAX:783-�1883 Certifi ca t e of Surve y for; pRE� �R�D � UILD�'RS House Address: 2 ` 80.00 (at � P ) � � 80. 7 mevaurad � ,� —��r '� ., 866L y 0 �dW �; ��Q 35 � �. �.r °v c. a o� 0 mm �� N vO N N � sno II i � �a.oa :e:�: I " I Moug . T ( � t �9iT. rd � �� I I 7.''� � T2a7 3A �� ° Gitif� I � g 1 1 ¢CA ° 1 � l.O�t �OOI �O{AOtiGfl: �� Top of 81oek EJewticn: r�o � Sir1 nn 1 I { l � �� o � m� � �� oa �° �� 0 �� W Nv q N �, � � i I � � i I T T T y � PtONE�R * eng neer '� � � �' 2422 Ent�rpr ""°"d°`° ".k EXHIBIT �""o s�+�r+s • a�'�l E'�QNf},�t5 ,(612) 881• � uNO AUt+t+ERS . {,,Utp�pE �}{rtECTS 825 Certifica te of Stzrvey for. Ho c�se Ad d ress: ;��Q�� . : ` FEB 0 5 1s98 ,; � 3� 0 35 _� ' • 1►.y� : l�l� � �� y _ ' : ML� �N .. a_ . . -.. . . s_ . . : ... a_ , 400.o Denofea C�fstlnn F�.v.,�r..,. v Q. a 0 m N �. N _ .. _ H(Qhwa� Blotne. 11N „543�4 (612) 783-1880 FAX:783—t883 PR�'��'�R�'D B �JILDE.PS 8265 S ri La e Ra (so.00 PtQt) I F,.,o ,P 50.37 meaaured F,,,a ,P� I i �� o � o � � � r. ao 0 34 o Q � oa E ��o �� M� � � r o c,;� q N N � S00 � 23.t2 � � ( �4.00 -- I � I I o PROP03iD HOUSE � i� n 12 l�tS 891T. o a � I . � Pi %3s r 1Za% . (3�) "' doo I i u' ' a . �� 8 . � . . r N i � � ,t.00 � n.m � 00 � I Z7.ae 0l�VEMAY � 'n �o � � n � �I � � fH0 p I 80.00 SPR Il�TG �,.e� R� e n r _.. _._... .�� . . L � _ , � : 4_�� _ �, � � __ : � I Plannin Commission g Memo TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Jim Ericson, Planning Associate SUBJECT: Community Center Development Review DATE: March 13, 1998 Because the planning report for the Community Center Development Review was not completed by the time the packet went out, the report for this item will be delivered to your homes on Monday or Tuesday. Thanks for your understanding. ` 1 L � �' { ..l s � �'� 1 �:,1. 1 � �,y�,, �, I �:.�I � ��'W- c�� Gl � � � ..�____ �i .� d•••. — L . --- 7 — 13 1 I •. ;11'.. A..: 1 .!TI If 1 •'---- ,-; v.! 1 lit ..--- . ./."., ..., -.v. / , il .../ o • / '7/ / /' • <C\ • L E.—.727-721-1"FZ:L% MM. 4.r . , _ El:MEW:MO DAME 1,111 IR; ; 27 0 3 } If 11 It 11 P -1/4 F 111 1,i;:11 11.11 ivzg, VIII 5 tio zorlinlif I I • 11,n ; • a I, Hi f■ 11 la tj 1 1 = i 11 I pi 1 11 11 11 !I 11 I III 11 !that t.ft akin 1151 / ir !mit Yir 1(1 It", : 1 ;Ili 11; VI 1 I 14 CARMIKE CINEMAS. INC. 15 SCREEN THEATRE MOUNDS VIEW , MINNESOTA Iseszle ragiszering,The. (16 Lei i,,a2,2,C1 15Ess Agti,th Oi gh Group, — ...so. a ..01.4143 1,14.11711.64.11 i4 l I.. 1.1.1. e r. ai �� li {� ?� #II{ II ?'1:, Nil i7' 'I ' { Irr )l7j' s utr sry 11:1111:12111 n lt�� Ii' ` y aI#` ## ' Iflii Ni i % lispp it [t !P ti. gl E a . ! ;i1l Il {j { r; ri1, , Ii!! Y ic#Il ' !:'l {.{ tEPI 1 .I1 " li- f ,E' {.11 lr {,I1 {:f 111 ;1? J ,_'1 #tII, i, ¢sf'IY° 1l jit ,,f.n€. ##• fa i :_;; 131 'f is 7�1E `E I t 1 !l;'i'f! Iii It11,I �1! II 11 l [i E�1.f {i { il31�i it D `Jj1 ;;111„ ! 1 $t `ii {ri ,.11 fig ?171 r ' Ili, {; :1�>, = a f { �li,i =Il 3# p 1!! ! ;1 II 1Pr ;,1 111 1ij 1 Pi; e1 " ill: #11 1 jjl lily , 111 1 irI' {H,1 �;rr11 (1' 1 !h1 t 11!? Ii} � {1„ is }} e I {i e! i . I Pi; I ii 1111? 1 11 1110. 1lr illi1.10 I Ma[i[ ill I 11111' !r. i ;a?Ir{ i .1 1 Ia �' till I?: laic, � :1 1,,. I t.{} ill 1 I:i� # -� .k?#l![ ' 1411 R#lit i Ett#r 1 of 1 { iii i ;' !.r E 1_Q, Ii�a•Ia 1 EJ � ?4(11 1 � III { d }`1 { "R I 1 1 ; I H ` #EI }(r ';!I jlir�r E 1471 I {{ ?Apt III ill'f ,II; f' . { leg !II ih !fir :�I; 11 II 1, ` Iii: I 1q lr1 1 i(Il# ;i1! �iE p !j rl.f` !lid,' aE t I?11iE� 1 I i E,11 l rl 1, i It1 PI ' =II, lb 11: ig I ;1 ! ;.r; '�E �a �. 1` t1i Er e� g .l # r11r1 ?q�r� 1 V 33143J 111s i!0! NOIWYi1ffi1SM 1YJI0V1 MO r 17 a ` 11 3� Ya I at it _ ®® CARMIKE CINEMAS. INC. 15 SCREEI4 THEATRE 1 MOUNDS VIEW , MINNESOTA Sul& EaciDetrins. 1®r. -Yw J •Amos Dmig. d wg.uyi • 17 1 avl ( r / t,.7 J I0 ....: + °.�� I Ilk ,..3 I/ � cy alti IQ &IA 1010 if il gyp' A v. ®© 0 / // / / ARMIKE CINEMAS, INC. - . .......a. 15 SCREEN THEATRE sP. 1�• �J MOUNDS VIEW MINNESOTA 00 -0 Ii t I [ i i e r a i WA • ^,5 7 1 4 •1 ••■-• • N., 3 Jul F. : r; g. r; gi 11- j:i !if s L45nv Tae-- Rood D...,,,a00.1 • • .1 • • 11110" 31'; ilti ' .1 4 l'O CA. • t / 1.306312 41111 WI 11 HI .! 1 1 - / • it • \ \ I •3, 1 • • Ylck•ell & I 0,1 1 1 11/ 11! ■.i"A 1 itr 4) (1 r • I • '1:10 • , • Vo▪ l• .3 4 , • 11 \ / ; . \F • 4.11 CI " / • • IT • , ,' .1 \l' .. 1 ',/,..', k.i.C.41 '''.---.41;14.",l-L-2,:,_- L--.7-z-------- \---- - --:.----Th \ .--.=-.\ / • --, ' : 1,,Yll'.1 1 1 :I a. .:.„ • • 4 r-t......_____ isrHt.t:Vi-1-..l..---,-..----171.7,---N,,z,4 !-,.l.. . l 1* 1 . 1-. 1.1 . (44 Y . 1'., ,i ,• ' . : ,. !\ . 4 . . -•/4 1, ";1..,;-„I -- - _--, _1 1- _-;1'• . .• ,•4 ; 4 1 I 144 .: ',, AI.. „/11. 1 1 -, -t.'4 ..- „ il " --.. .!..-.I, \ .-_ ; ,:-r `. 1i \ \ •$ \ •- ..,'., .. . ..\ r..4 .t .. . \1 ‘‘ . .. .1 ." 1 ) !. '4 i .4 \'re . . ., .4 ., 1 .4 , • 'i• i '•; )1 rib -I .r,.). \ .1 • '''. ., : 1 ../ ' 4 1'1.01 . )). • '1 . 11 . t • i 14 l' .4'. C 14 •l1 01,-, .1 • •N.1 01 1.1 14 / 1 .i.7-:..0..\ ..., 015 . ! .1) / 1 4 '''' 'II- .1, \O ' :1 ij...1 '1 1 ' 1 ' I...1 ' 1 . .11 3.0. '.. '...1 ...., • .4 ., . .., q ,...r, • l', 1 . .,... II': .1 ,' -, - N., ■ I'd r '1. l- - ■ f Ili .4 . , I 4 ..0 ).1. 1 z • r wfir\1-. .1, ., ., .1:1, .., z..- • Y-...F6, .,•1 :;,, A.. : .• _i, .:"4"0 .„', %'A'l! 'I' . .1 ! / / . ,c> • . / .a.41.4.1 / ,04.?" / a ... 1 .4 .. .i.). • ,, ./. V • / • / / Zr rirp941 1 i ! / f? / i3. / • ., Q.- .. .." , .,/ 1 N nlD • • „ ir / / / / 4 ' ''.--• - --. ,-.............---..=•-,..,„ •-,.-... . rx ::.. .. • .___ # agjeaarr.rallftWtatrIPMIDSWeatritialniniff&MalritdeMerr[MEEREEMMEEmmeMircattiraWNM _ --.---- ''':i='-'7‘ri.t.;-.".■17.77:7!.■.','.77117... •I,I.' :• !, ....-..N9 Ij. .1.,11111111.r. Oa auseciiiirm-lawagit,6 :TEGITratthxdffiz- mcd-miurta-a---021=2-uatiugiglerm •..A•irgokx-tirmoTrastrst '''''''''' atal=lithi&An WITAISILIS liti rfftZtifirallEZ011M-Itar=itil-....111711MTOZYMWEITrAirETTIEktrraMMIIII 1 1 IIII'`lilii! I lil 111110!1 •1' ° " ifJIEl Iii NEB; '�i 1 11' 0 MEI M. i., Jli!`1'.,P ■■l lrf' il ji qv: lilra Mia., a_ IMF MI INN a Mirk t. itior I MED no Ng ae=r Mar 17 S8 04:47p Wen ell R. Smith 612 484 -0699 r Mar 17 98 04 :46p Wendell R. Smith :® z m -4 0 z at ert 0 35'-4" 612°484 -0699 '1,433419 0421i 03141Vd 1k+Odd(1$ 31Od•ONO1'I ft-=r °r ®a 4v 6. O rm� o ry 7Tm •g a On�atn00 raX °008 7- 4..9, ~0 6mm Z . t O rl F i P a x w 71m V • fed' l rqw aw �T .r.,04. —�or vCOvy C�% C.�� a rm. A Q en or K i 7 2 0 ,rt 0 Ci LI _L ®�_z ��vrr�Cd `°O0O �C ®Q �� ®a A C � �m0 22 CC m - w a L. M T O C P m C 5, Oc-t w7.-+ rneo mi ot 77 In.0 mU7 y, 2C so rm 71 1,1 0 m CZ pv8 TO: Planning Commission, Mayor & City Council, City Staff, Chuck Whiting, Rick Jopke FROM: SLWHA special committee MEMORANDUM CO -chairman Julie Olsen SUBJECT: O'Neil Property 2430 Highway 10 Planning Case No. 471 -97 DATE: March 23, 1998 On 03/17/98 we reviewed the following plans for the proposed development for the 15 screen theater parcel adjoining highway 10, east of Long Lake Road. C1 -site plan C2 -grading C3- utility C4- details Job 98- planting schedule 2/10/98 tree survey We did not receive any written specification or proposed agreements other than the above. It is our understanding based on our previous requests that our concerns would not be addressed until the approval process of the development plan. As requested, our concerns will now be expressed as what we "don't want ". 1. We do not want to see either the Development plans or the PUD approval by any body of the city administration without an express prohibition against any traffic access to Long Lake Road other than from the area designated at Parcel A. Which is on the corner of Highway 10 and Long Lake Road and designated as a restaurant site. This prohibition would include and potential, present or future street such as previously described as the "Ring Road ". 2. We do not want to see any development plan or PUD approval by any body of the city administration without specific exclusion of any vehicular traffic from the above described Parcel A to any other parcel in the development. 3. We do not want to see any development plan or PUD approval by and body of the city administration without restricting the curb cut to Long Lake Road from the proposed "Outlot A" to an area north of Mounds View Drive intersection and preferably restrict such curb cut to a right in right out access with an island on Long Lake Road north of Mounds View Drive. Julie Ann Olsen 2663 Lake Court Circle Mounds View MN 55112 (612) 783-9366 Residence (612) 783 -8920 FAX Sincerely, Julie Ann Olsen Co -chairman special committee SLWHA out F- T 1: SMISSION FAY: To: Jim Ericson Date: March 31, 1998 Fax #: 784 -3462 Pages: 1, including this cover sheet. From: Mark Bishop Subject: Planning Case #471 -97 COMMENTS: The plan looks fine with the exception of the width of the access roads. We would like to see both of the "in- hound" lanes at least 20 feet wide (too easy to block otherwise). If the plan changes to only one access road, we would need a minimum of 24 feet wide on the "in" leg as well as some kind of emergency access further along the property Frontage.As we discussed, the problem with emergency access is that it is usually not maintained adequately, March 26, 1998 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (612) 7727910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 Mr. Rick Jopke Community Development Department City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: Anthony Properties Management, Inc. Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Review, DNR Wetland 62471W, City of Mounds View, Ramsey County Dear Mr. Jopke: The PUD- Development Stage Plans (dated March 6, 1998) for Anthony Properties Management, Inc. were received by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on March 17, 1998, and were reviewed in relation to the comments that were submitted to the City of Mounds View by the DNR in a letter dated March 3, 1997 (enclosed). The topographic contours on the new plans clearly show that the proposed work for the PUD will be above the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of 895.8' (NGVD, 1929) for DNR Protected Wetland 62-171W. Therefore, the proposed work is not within DNR jurisdiction and a DNR Protected Water Permit is not required for the project. We would like to commend the City of Mounds View and Anthony Properties Management, Inc. for placing the erosion control fencing for the project at least fifty (50) feet from the OHW for the wetland. The new plans indicate that native plants will be established between the structures in the PUD and the DNR wetland. We commend the City of Mounds View and Anthony Properties Management, Inc. for establishing plants that will provide habitat suitable for wildlife in Minnesota. The native plants should be maintained by mowing or burning only once a year. Careful site preparation will be needed before the native plants are established to prevent unwanted plants from growing in these areas. It is also nice to see the large number of existing trees that will be left on the properties. The trees will provide screening of the road and other structures for the people within the proposed structures. In addition, the trees will provide shelter for the wildlife that will use the wetland areas. Thank you for submitting the updated plans for the Anthony Properties Management, Inc. PUD to the DNR. It appears that great improvements have been made in the project plans. Please contact me at 772 -7910 should you have questions concerning this letter. Sincerely, } .1` Joseph G. Richter Hydrologist MCS:JGR/kI enclosure c: Rice Creek Watershed District, Kate Drewry DNR Planning, Bill Johnson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tim Fell DNR Ecological Services, Wayne Barstad Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District, Tom Peterson DNR information: 612 -296 -6157. 1- 800 - 766 -6000 a TTY: 612 - 296 - 5484, 1 -800- 657.3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer et, Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity ent4 19inimum of 1OCk Post - Consumer Waste March 3, 1997 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 -6793 Telephone: (612) 772 -7910 Fax: (612) 772 -7977 Ms. Pam Sheldon City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Re: Project Reviews, PUD's Dear Ms. Sheldon: The DNR recently received two development proposals for parcels in the city. Neither one appears to impact the DNR protected waters on site. Conceptual PUD Plan - D.W. Jones, Wetland 62 -258 The project will create a high degree of impervious surface. The plans do not show the locations of any treatment basins. Anthony Properties PUD, Wetland 62-171 The DNR has determined an ordinary high water elevation of 895.8 feet. The site plan does not show enough topographic detail to determine if encroachment will occur. The wetland delineation shows "bottom 894 -895 feet." DNR permit rules prohibit development fills below 895.8 feet. On both of these projects we support the city's buffer requirements of 100 feet. If encroachment is allowed, additional planting should be considered. The buffer should remain unmowed and natural. If enhancement of the buffer is allowed, native species of grasses and wildflowers should be considered. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan and Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. DNR information: 612-296 -6167. I- 80t }- 766 -6000 • TTY: 612 -206-5-14-1-1, 1-8M- 657- 39229 An Equal Opportunity Emplitcr Pnntct! on Rcc:■:lei Pape: Containing s Who Values Divcr.ny tJ Slinunum it !Il°; Poa- Con.umcr Mime DATE: TO: Rice Creek watershed 7/9 deA 3585 LEXINGTON AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 330 ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 55126 -8056 TELEPHONE (612) 483-0634 FAX (612) 483 -9186 4 L. Board of Managers Regular Meetings: 2nd and 4th Wednesdays at Shoreview City Hall KATE DREWRY, District Admin. BONITA TORPE, Admin. Assist. Based upon receipt of your request for a review of the referenced proposed project, the following comments are made for the site located at 7/, Permit app . from the Rice Creek Watershed District is required for this project. A Permit Application and information brochure are enclosed. No permit is required from the Rice Creek Watershed District for this project Based on our review of the information submitted, none of the conditions outlined in the Rice Creek Watershed District Permit Information brochure last revised October 1993 appear to be present for the proposed project. }Old 1,16A-ec g r' ttal:4 `'e4 .2 ni The District's requirement for stormwater runoff rate control' be applicable to this site. The Wetland Act may apply and wetlands need to be avoided first, then impact Tninimi7ed and mitigated in accordance with Wetland Act of 1991. No filling below the 100 -year flood plain elevation will be allowed unless compensatory storage is provided. Minimum building opening elevations roust be at Ieast two feet above the established 100 - year flood plain elevation. No 100 -year flood elevations exist for the project site; therefore, it will be necessary for the applicant to determine appropriate 100 -year flood plain elevations through the use of a professionally registered engineer. A.J. CARDINAL, SR. CAROLE V. RYDEN ANOKA COUNTY RAMSEY COUNTY BOARD OF MANAGERS ROBERT M. HULT WASHINGTON COUNTY Continued on Page BARBARA A. HAAKE EUGENE L. PETERSON RAMSEY COUNTY ANOKA COUNTY interoffice M E M O R A N D U M to: from: Rick Jopke, Community Develo. $ ent Rick Wriskey, Forester subject: Landscape Plan Review - Anthony Properties Management, Inc. date: March 31, 1998 I have reviewed the landscape plan proposal for the "O'Neil" property north of County Road H2 and west of Highway 10. The following are some recommendations and comments. 1. The 302 Taunton yews (TY) planned around buildings in the development could present a potential hazard based on the toxic effects of any resulting fruit (berries). These plants could be an even greater risk where there might be children. I would propose as substitution any of three varieties of junipers (Sea Green, Mint Juleps, Savin) where there is some sun and more of the compact vibrurnum (DV) where shade is a factor. 2. Consider moving the 22 Black Hills Spruce (BH) farther northeast off the parking lot to allow for snow storage and salt residue. 3. Local results seem to favor Dwarf Korean Lilac over Miss Kim Lilac (MKL) for both growth and fragrance. 4. Substitute the 11 Patmore Ash on the northwest side of the project with common hackberry (CH) or swamp white oak (SWO). 5. Consider substituting Imperial honeylocust (111) with the variety "Shademaster." This variety seems to do better climate -wise and appears to do better with respect to Nectria canker fiingus. 6. There will be some sparse areas in the natural oak screen to the south. With oak wilt history in two spots in this screen, it wouldn't be wise to plant more oaks of any kind here. However, the addition of about 20 hackberry (CH) placed in these openings would help this buffer in future years. G :1WP\FR981LNDSPRVW.WPD II ST PAUL, MW G MINNEAPOLIS, MN 0 ST,, CLOUD, MN 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI TO: Jim Ericson, City of Mounds View FROM: Rocky J. Keehn DATE: April 13, 1998 MEMORANDUM 0 MADISON, WI C7 LAKE COE,Wrr. IN RE: Anthony Properties Management, Inc.lLouise O'Neil Planning Case 471-97 SEH File No. A- MOUND9701.00 (Pocket File 80.03) We have completed a review of the above referenced project, Based on our review it is recommended that the City storm sewer system be eliminated from the site plan (42 -inch EQ. RCP, and connecting pipes). Since the developer's system cannot be connected to the City system, the dual storm sewers are a system which is not cost effective for the City to have constructed_ If the dual system is replaced with one storm sewer system, Over 8 feet of head (water pending) would need to be developed in the manhole located on the existing storm sewer system on the east side of the project This could cause problems with the upstream storm sewer system. In the future, a larger storm sewer system in 112 would be more cost effective. This system can use the existing storm sewer system in Irondale Road, wetland on the west side of the proposed project and tie into the drainage system on Long Lake Road to reduce the cost of construction. Recent wetland regulation and Rice Creek Watershed District requirements have made the originally proposed storm sewer project in the Anthony Properties unfeasible. In the original plan, the storm water from Anthony Properties was going to be treated at a pond in the southwest corner of Long Lake Road and 1.1,2. With the stricter ponding requirements, this site would not be large enough. The developer tried to make the proposed system work (at our request) by using a dual system, but in reviewing the information it is apparent that this is not the best alternative for the City. The wetland buffer will be an issue since the site has building within. the 100 foot protection area. Natural vegetation and buffer strip easements should be obtained. With the sediment ponds and easements, the construction in the buffer area will be mitigated. Our recommendations are: Eliminate the City based storm sewer system on the property ► Obtain an Easement in the wetland buffer area of at least 10 feet from the wetland. if you have any other questions please call be at 490 -2026. RlKlrjk sAwA Lako °t v1 nEmoskmoursvw.m U4 /Uj /116 .,Kl 1U :40 YA$ i$1Z 490 L150 ■ ST, PAUL, MN 0 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 0 ST. CLOUD, MN C] CHIPPEWA FALLS, VwI 0 MADISON, WI sta ig002 MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Campbell FROM Glen Van Wormer G DATE: March 31, 1998 RE: Mounds View, Minnesota Carrnike Cinema Inc. Site Plan Review SEH No. A- MOtJND9805.00 Q LAKE COUNTY, JA We have reviewed the site plan for the Carmike Theater and the associated office buildings, buildings and restaurants. A general concept for the site plan was agreed to through a series es o meetings between the City, developer and neighbors. We previously had an opportunity to work series of with the concept and with the evaluation and development Y rk since dropped the ring road concept as far as the connection between riLon Lake City has Edgewood Drive on the south side of Highway 10. g I-a1�e Raad and The primary entrance to the theater is at relocated Edgewood Drive. As such, most of the site, travels past the main entrances to the theater and then enters they f the traffic is an option for traffic from the north and west to travel to the south Highway 10 entrance and Three at the southeast end of the parking area enter Given the basic concept of the site plan, there is not much choice other than to have traffic enter is shown. The islands, the 30 -foot wide aisle and the second entrance will help to reduce r as conflicts between; pedestrians accessing the theater and vehicles accessing the parkin lot. the The north entrance is shown; as 48 feet in width. This may be wider than Mn/DOT would prefer. If it is to be reduced, the option is to retain the 16 foot inbound lane and make the outbound 12 feet for the left turn lane and 14 feet for the through and right rid the double yellow centerline be continued around the corner so that the lanerarrangements ggent that defined in advance of the intersection (see attached). With the traffic signal at the intersection, can be would be undesirable for traffic to be in the wrong lane, especially with the wide median and left Ltan, tt lane on southbound Edgewood Drive. turn Trash facilities are conveniently located. The theater trash facility on the west side of the lot wi•11 require some backing up by the trash collection vehicle in order to make the 180 degree to return eastbound. The locations at thc•offce buildings are easily accessible. turn • This is especially An AjfirIVIlliiVe Aeion. LOW ONlaraliUnity Eniplayrr• 04/u3/98 k'KI 10:46 FAQ 612 490 1150 Steve Campbell March 31, 1998 Page 2 SEH important in light of the fact that either the offices or the theater will have vehicles in the parkin lot for most of the day and night. g Delivery vehicles must double park at the office buildings. While this is normal procedure for UP'S vehicles, office supply and other vehicles will also be forced to double park since there is no curb area near any of the buildings. This again could be only a minor problem. Deliveries at the theater will probably be made through the front and the vehicles can stop along the curb. Because the office buildings will also be generating traffic past the theater, at delivery times, the 30 -foot aisle width is necessary for smooth flow of traffic. The parking lot Layout of the theater and office buildings generally looks quite good. A minor suggestion would be to modify the ends of the islands on the west end of the parking aisles near the theater. Parking islands are 40 feet long with 24 feet of aisle width between them. Because the islands are relatively narrow, there is not much of a radius on the corner_ We would suggest that they be reduced to 36 to 38 feet in length to provide 2 to 4 additional feet for the aisle width making turns easier. There are a few remote parking spots which will have conflicts, such as those near the south entrance. These will be seldom used and as such will not be a problem. The future 6,400 square foot retail building will preclude any ring road in the future, The general layout of the building and parking lot is satisfactory. Delivery, trash and service vehicles will be forced to back up. To better accommodate movements from one parking lot area to the othe to eliminate potential backing into the main entrance to the facili rs, and between the two parking areas is desirable. The attached sketch shows this location. on the island The future 5,000 square foot restaurant is on a very difficult site. Access is shown to Highway 10. This will require a Mn/DOT permit. The access to the trash facility is rather difficult because of its position. There is also no good location for any type of delivery without double parking in a major aisle. As such we would suggest that the trash facility be moved to the south side of the building and a small delivery aisle be provided. The location of the trash facility on the southwest side of the building would make it easier to access by service vehicles. It also will allow trucks to back into the area for deliveries. • The facility in general is well'laid out. With a few minor modifications, we believe it will operate satisfactorily. saki VA PROJECf51MMMOUN DWWISSOCAMPRELL.M3 I 16003 04/03/98 FRI kTED 1047 FAX 612 490 2150 SEEI \‘..14 ks,ss 'N\,■ • • s. FUTURE 6,400 SQ. FL RETAIL BUILDING / '.. .. ''.: •t.' \ \`, \ • \ \ \W- ''', • \ . Nt '.■ >`. r , r 1J004 / • cf- PARKING PROVIDED xi; 49 Sr 1 1 : 1 ,4 24-0,4 LS i 16W. ' 4- 3Ce. PROPOSED 63,000 SO. FT. THEATER WITH 2.188 4" THICK, 6' WIDE r4r‘kir..orTr- eln.ruf6.11( u4 /U3/ 8 FK1 10 :47 FAX 612 490 2150 d + J SEH / 44 / /N / 1• • / ./ ♦ • 2005 ton nLevi- srdtwgi 4o res 412 relourk duppsIc and ?rollick,. de hi/try art Vic• \'''',../QA;;\::::% O /.; 1`/ te -C ) f \ * / f Tr m vci- �♦ - .1 ♦ dog �� /. ` \ N. ' /\ 40° a \ e \ \ • fr /�\ t o� -).1 I I I I.1 1 I i I E I, i '--• L4 _...1 -1 _. 1. >10V81.35 .)N1> dvd ,OV ! l 1 1 • ,ZZT REPLY TO ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CENTRE 190 FIFTH STREET EAST ST. PAUL, MN SStOt -1538 April 7, 1998 Construction - Operations Regulatory (97- 02905- NP -TJF) Mr. Rick Jopke City of Mounds View Community Development Director 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Dear Mr. Jopke: We have reviewed information about a project of Anthony Properties to develop a site at the southeast intersection of Trunk Highway 10 and Long Lake Road. The project site is in the SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec. 8, T. 30N., R. 23W., Ramsey County, Minnesota. The plan indicates that there would be no grading, filling or excavating within waters or wetlands® Therefore, a Department of the Army permit is not required to construct this project. However, we recommend that the wetland boundary line be clearly staked /marked in the field, so that inadvertent encroachment does not occur. This letter is valid only for the project referenced above. If any change in design, location, or purpose is contemplated, contact this office to avoid doing work that may be in violation of Federal law. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CONFIRMATION LETTER DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR STATE, LOCAL, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. If you have any questions, contact Timothy J. Fell in our St. Paul office at (612) 290 -5360. In any correspondence or inquiries, please refer to the Regulatory number shown above. CF: RCWD Sincerely, (Iji&A , ( r,1121ett De ton F Chief, Western Permits Section Printed an Recycled Paper ' ` _: L � -- _. - _ _-----== - �-• � -- -- - = � - - - ----- _ _ _ _ __. - --_ - __ ---- •- - -- , __ : --- - , � 1VIOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1998 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes: March 4, 1998 (Regular) 5. Pllnning Case No. 507-97 Property Involved: 2625 Highway 10, 7715 - 7761 Eastwood Road Discussion Regarding Walgreens Development Request Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applicant: Told Development Company 6. Planning Case No. 514-98 Property Involved: 8400 Coral Sea Street Discussion Regarding Development Review for Completion of the 2nd Phase of Bridges Technology Building Project Applicant: Bridges Leasing Company, LLC 7. Planning Case No. 517-98 Property Involved: 2430 Highway 10 (O'Neil Property) Discussion Regarding the Development Review Stage of the PUD, Preliminary Plat and a Wetland Buffer Permit Applicant: AP Mounds View Limited Partnership (Anthony Properties) 3. Staff Reports/Information Items 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 10. Adjournment to Agenda Meetin; **************�************************* APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTTFY CITY HALL AT 717-4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. *************************************** - - - - --�f i �_.�.- ---- . = — . _. t . .. .� . _ _.� -- _----�- - -� a I�W.r-.......� .._._� ..�_--J� .�.�+L''z <_ _., _ .__. - � "� F � � �^ � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1998 (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) AGENDA MEETIN AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. March 18, 1998 (special) 2. Meeting Adjournment � � � � � � - _ - - -- -` _. . _._ � . __�: ----- ---- - - --- � -- -- =- - -_ � -- - -- -- . __. � ---_- -- - ---- --- ; r �_ P 1 annin g Memo Commission TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Jim Ericson, Planning Associate SUBJECT; Walgreens Development Proposal DATE: April 1, 1998 Introduction: TOLD Development Company has requested that the City approve a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of residential properties to allow for the construction of a Walgreens store at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and County Road I. This case has been discussed at four previous Planning Commission meetings. The only new information that will be presented to the Commission is an update regarding the research done by the American Planning Association, the results of a meeting attended by representatives of Ramsey County, MnDOT, the applicant and City Staff, and an update concerning the possible installation of traffic calming devices on Greenwood Drive. The applicant has provided a reduced-copy site plan showing the proposed right turn lane from County Road I onto Highway 10, which is attached to this report. Background: APA Research. Staff recently received the research performed by the American Planning Association concerning the impact of a new commercial use into a residential area. Unfortunately, the materials we received did not contain anything related to the specific question that was asked. Because of this, I did not attach the research to this report, but it will be made available at the meeting if anyone has an interest in it. Discussion with the Cit,y Attorney: At the last Planning Commission meeting, questions were raised which needed to be addressed by the City Attorney concerning property values and responsibility in the event a mistake or miscalculation is made during the project review or construction. Regarding property devaluation, neither the City nor the developer can be held liable for any real or perceived reduction in property value. For properties abutting vacant land or in close proximity to major transportation arteries or major commercial centers, there is a certain degree of risk that neighboring land uses might change. If done in compliance with the municipal code and State statutes, the act of rezoning a tract of land shall not necessitate compensatory settlements with adjoining property owners. Regarding the issue of liability in the event a mistake � _. � 4 - . - - . _ _ � _ _- --- - _ � .- : . -: - - : __ _.: _ � -` ` _ - � , _ ,. _ � , ,i—` - - — =— �-- °- --= -_ _- ._ _�_ . _._:_. __ . Planning Commission Report #5 Walgreens Proposal March 26, 1998 Page 2 or oversight is made during the project review or construction, according to Nlinnesota Statutes, a city, its staff and paid consultants cannot be held liable for any damages. Discussion with the itv Eneineer• One of the questions asked at the last Planning Commission meeting was how might the water table be impacted with the construction of the Walgreens store. StafF directed this query to the City Engineer for his comment. Rocky Keehn of SEH, who is a certified hydrological engineer specializing in stormwater and wetland management, explained that there should be no impact to the water table directly attributable to this project. If anything, because of the impervious surface area proposed, there might be less recharge into the water table. Recharge is the means by which a water table or aquifer replenishes itself by absorbed water through the ground. The recharge of a water table in a particular area is decreased as more impervious surface is added. The regrading of the subject parcels to prevent stormwater runoff onto adjoining properties should also lessen some of the existing problems experienced by the adjacent owners. MnDOT Meetin�,, On Niarch 26, 1998, a meeting was held with MnDOT attended by myself, Robert Cunningham of TOLD Development, Dan Soler, Ramsey County Traffic Engineer; Scott Peters, MnDOT Local Government Liaison, Michael Christenson, Assistant Division Engineer for NInDOT, Michael Chen and Jim Benshoof of Benshoof & Associates; and other MnDOT staff. The focus of the discussion concerned the right-in right-out access proposed on Highway 10. In a letter dated March 2, 1998, Scott Peters denied the proposed access due to safety considerations. Specifically, there was not enough spacing between the intersection and the access point to allow for safe deceleration. This letter was followed by another letter dated March 17, 1998, from Mike Christenson, who reiterated 1�Ir. Peter's denial, stating that it would be irresponsible of MnDOT to allow such an access. (This letter has been attached for your reference.) In addition to this, however, he pointed out that MnDOT does not "own" the access rights for this location and as such cannot prevent the access being granted if the City so desires. The meeting expanded on this theme in that MnDOT could not actually deny the request since the approval was not theirs to give. The applicant and his trai�ic experts pointed out that the addition of the right turn lane on County Road I and the removal of the Eastwood Road access actually improved the overall functioning of the intersection, to which MiiDOT and Dan Soler agreed, yet they did not feel the benefits exceeded the possible dangers associated with the proposed Highway 10 access. The meeting adjourned without MnDOT changing its position. Traflic Calming: The City Engineer was sent two diagrams showing possible traffic calming plans for Greenwood Drive. Of the two options presented, both of which are attached and labeled Option 1 and Option 2, both the City Engineer and Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works, indicated that Option 1 would be more of a deterrent to fast speeds due to the abruptness ofthe lane shift, whereas Option 2 is less abrupt and more smooth-flowing. The cost associated with either option are minimal, although Option 1 would be significantly less as no additional pavement would be required. Mike Ulrich explained that this might be a good test case which if proved successful, could be incorporated into future street reconstructions and as a tool to reduce speeds on some streets with long, uninterupted blocks. , ` � _ ___ � � ` -' - � � � ` �; - - --- ' - - -- - -- —= - :..w�-:-� ; :-:-� - - ---�-�-- - - — Planning Commission Report #5 Walgreens �roposal March 26, "1998 Page 3 Analysis: One of the primary issues that has not been resolved is the effect of Walgreens development on the abutting property owners. While staff has not yet learned of any previous studies or comparable situations, we will continue to search. Given the information provided by the two real estate appraisers contacted, property values may be negatively impacted by the addition of the Walgreens. The e�ent of the impact, if any, would be mitigated by the type of use, the neighborhood in which it is located, the amount of buffering provided, and other factors. It is staf�s contention that any decrease in value would be negligible if at all. The developer has offered to compensate the adjacent property owners with additional land (as much as 4,000 square feet per property) or by means of a cash settlement. Staff is not aware of whether or not the settlement offers have been accepted. There are other impacts to the surrounding property owners and the neighborhood beyond property values. The issue re;arding additional pass-through traffic on Greenwood Drive is as much of a concern to the City as it is the residents living on Crreenwood Drive. The traffic experts claim that the additional vehicle trips will be negligible and would not be noticed given the numbers of vehicles already using the street. While this may be true from a theoretical perspective, from the perspective of a resident that already considers traffic to be excessive, more tr�c would only add to the problem. For this reason the applicant would consider installing some type of traffic calming device, perhaps similar to the options presented herein, or in some other form. The result of which would be that the additional tra.ffic that would have used Greenwood Drive and perhaps some existing traffic would be diverted to Long Lake Road or some other street. The speed of the remaining traffic would be reduced in addition. With regard to the access onto Highway 10, it has been learned that the City, not MnDOT, holds the right of approval in this location. That being the case, the City could approve the site plan at development review with the access onto Highway 10 indicated on the plans. And while ample justification might exist for doing so by looking at other properties having similar "difficult" access points (SuperAmerica, proposed Holiday store, the Oasis Mart at H2 and 10, to name a few), MnDOT stresses that the mistakes of the past should not be the basis for approving future problem access points. The other consideration regarding the access is if the City does approve the site plan with the Highway 10 access, how might that impact future City/MnDOT negotiations? The Highway 10 design theme implementation could be compromised if the City contradicts MnDOT's position. Mr. Cunningham has stated that the project is dependent upon the Highway 10 access without which there would be no project. It would be sta�s recommendation to approve the requests before the Commission and deal with the Highway 10 access at the development review stage of this project. Even though the City could approve the access poini outright, the applicant should be directed to continue to negotiate with MnDOT to resolve this issue without City intervention. � �—=-___..._, - ----- --_-- -- - -- - i� Planning Commission Report #S Walgreens Proposal March 26, 1998 Page 4 _:. _.:--- - -- �'` _='x _�.'<t_ _�� ' �. _: �_ "-- � -_ - From input gathered at the two previous community forums held to discuss the comprehensive plan and future development in the Highway 10 corridor, there is a general agreement that commercial development should be restricted to those properties having Highway 10 frontage. The fact that this assembly of parcels has its predominant frontage upon County Road I should not "disqualify" it for commercial development, regardless of which way the proposed building would face. This use, at the corner of the busiest intersection within the City, an intersection at which three of the four corners are already developed with high-intensity commercial uses, would not be an intensive use and would act as a good transition into the adjoining neighborhood. Because the City will be presented with similar redevelopment proposals at other locations within the corridor, a policy should be drafted which w�uld address commercial encroachment into residential areas. This policy would be incorporated into the City's comprehensive plan update, which will be completed this year. Recommend�tion: Staff recommends approving Planning Commission Resolution 536-98, a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a comprehensive plan amendment to change the designations of the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road to NC, Neighborhood Commercial, to allow for the construction of a Walgreens Drug Store. 2. Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 538-98, a resolution recommending approval of Ordinance No. 614, an ordinance amending the City's official zoning map by rezoning the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road to a B-2, Limi.ted Business District classification. Attachments: 1. Letter from Mike Christenson of MnDOT, dated 3/17/98 2. Memo from Tom Sohrweide, SEH, dated 3/26/98 3. Traffic Calming Options 1& 2 4. Revised Site Plan, Reduced 5. Ordinance No. 614 6. Planning Commission Resolution 538-98 "7. Planning Commission Resolution 536-98 N:�DATA\GROUPS\COIvIDEVU�E VCASES1507-97\507-97.PC5 � -- . F . . � . _ . - ' . . I � ' ' ' �I J�HNE�r� o° i e 4 w � tff � O� 7M�4 Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 Wesi County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 March 17, 1998 Jim Ericson City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Jim Ericson: SUBJECT: TOLD Development Company Site Plan Review S98-01S Northeast Quadrant of Trunk Highway (T'I� 10 and County Road I Mounds View, Ramsey County C.S. 6204 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) includes the following concerns in 3ddition to our letter of March 2, 1997 regarding this subject. Allowing the proposed access on TH 10 would be irresponsible of us and may jeopazdize the safety and operation of TH 10. When access points increase along a highway, accident problems and congestion problems are likely to follow. Control and reduction of access is crirical in minimizing highway congestion, and are important factors in reducing accidents on higliways. An access this close to an intersection bri.ngs a very high probability of serious accidents. The local street network most safeiy accommodates local circulation and property access needs. An adequate local street network is complementary to the re�ional highway system. tZegional highways cannot substitute ior the locai s�°eet network. The platting and development of property must create, extend and utilize such a neLwork. Mn/DOT does not own the right to restrict access to the highway at th�is locarion. TH 10 is a minor arterial and thus, has a lower priority for use of Mn/DOT resources when compared with other regi.onal highways. However, we strongly recommend that the City of Mounds View recognize the consequences of allowing tnwk highway access this close to an intersection. The city has the power and authority to act accordi.ngly in limiting site access to the local street network that currently provides access to TH 10. If VIn/DOT is asked to purchase the right to restrict TH 10 access on this parcel, it could cost several hundred thousand dollars. An equal opportunity employer Jim Ericson March 17, 1998 page two .. . � _. - y �.-. _ "- _; � -:: - i ��-`�' �r "�i - �_ ; , � _. - - - = - • ---- , _.�� - .___.e_ . _ _ _. ,=_ _ °---=-- - . _ _ :i It is increasingly important that local governments cooperate with i�In/DOT in effectively managing the region's highways. Safety and congestion problems are many, arid solutions are more difficult and very costly to implement. The likeiihood of problems caused by the proposed access will increase as this corridor continues to develop and traffic in the area �ows. We cannot replace the regional highway system. The system is a regional resource and we must manage it for the benefit of the region as a whole. Mn/DOT's ability to promote safe and efficient traffic flow on the highway is compromised without the cooperation of property owners and local governments in the land development process. It is our desire to work in partnership with the City of Mounds View to manage the regional highway system effectively. We strongly recommend that the city act accordingly to ensure that site access is limited to the local streets that currently provide access to TH 10. Regional policy developed by the Metropolitan Council disappzoves direct access to minor arterials from individual properties. The emphasis of TH 10 is to serve mobility as opposed to direct land access. Access to County Road I is more appropriate. Regional policy also advocates land access management and control as tools in ensuring that minor arterials continue to operate efficiently and effectively. As one goal of the City's Focus 2000, initial highway corridor improvements have focused on a bike/pedestrian trail adjacent to TH 10. The City must strongly evaluate the future trail and safety of its users when considering development plans with direct property access to TH 10. Please contact me at 582-1000 with any questions. A.ssistant Division Engineer, Transportation Planning c: Dan Soler, Ramsey Cownty Traffic Engineer Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council Transportation 0�/26/98 THU 15:44 FAX 612 490 2150 SEH (� 002 - - �� MEMOf3ANDCl,M ■ ST. P�UL, MN ❑ MINNFJIPOUS, MN o ST. CLOUD, MN ❑ C!-11PPEWA FALL3, Wl G Mn0lSON, Wl R LAKE OOCIMY,IN T0: Jim Erickson, City of Mounds View FROM: Tom Sohrweide�� DA7.'E: March 26, 1998 ItE: G�eenwood Drive Traf�ic Diversion SEH l�To. A-IVIOUND9845.00 Steve Campbell has Porwazded your FAX to me regarding the tr�['ic diversi.ons on Greenwood Drive. As C6air of the North Ceno�al Institute of Transportation Engineer's (NCITE) Neighborhood T,raffic Control Committee, � have kept aware of various traffic calming techniques and have the followirtg observations. Cenerally, crearing a cu�vilinear alignment reduces traffic speeds. However, if it isn't doae abntpsly enough, drivers can snaig�ten out the curves, thereby nunimizing the effect on their speed. Another coneem wiuch I've seen iui many situations, is tha� whiie physical features, sucb, as curves may slovv veh�icle speeds, camplaints and problems can continue as vehicles are driving too fast for conclitions. While they may have been driving 3S mph pzeviously� a reconstructed alignment desims to slow speeds to 20 mph, while they acNally drive it az 25 mph. This can result in vehicles crossing the centerline or losing control. Of the caro oprions, Option 1 combines two fe�atures. Roadway narrowing and curvilinear alignment. The closer the pr�trusians are together, the more potential. co izz�paci speed. Caution needs ta be taken to assure safe maintenance and emergency vehicle access. Option 2 uses curvilineaz aligncnent only. Although this ean work, it creates greater o�portunity for driv�rs to try and smooth out the curves and/or driva too fast for the new candition. A recent MnDOT survey of inetxo a�ea traffic calming activity categories which included street n�rrawing and horizontal reali�nment generally were reported ta result in unproved street safery. if yau have any questions �elarive to the above ar desire aclditional informarion, please call me at 490- 207Z. ts c: Steve Campbell, SEH 9:1TRa,�J31MOUPID+[3AW D.R'PD An AJff mwrive Aetio� EAuel OPPcrrwiry F�nployer Ir� � �.... r.a. � � 2 Z N �+ � � a m v� �- � cn Us � � 'D o� �' 3 N C7 n � c m m m rn � � m no c�o m� � rn c� .a t� I n> -+ # �= m O y Z ?� � Z �m� m "� �� m� m m� c�i� G� -n c m m�� r�� o�o N � o e 21 � a�� R�1 O 0� C� r m D 0� � O [G � � r z C -i R� � � � Z n c � � W � � m -a '_'� '�'s ?7 � � Q�n D m m o� � p � O C� � D n� D�� O C C Z � Z m Z d Z� p� G�� m v � r�� m�� 0 O � n n n Q C C C � � m Q � < Z �D cn � � � b �n :o � 'o D D �� m w `� m m n� m � c � � � � � m � � � O m -� rrt + rn + m — � � m QQ � Am a c� p =G �n fn �-� -1 � n C� u� r tn r C m z D 0 m r z Z Z<-< �'n <(n � a '� r � p Z � � m � � � � � � � cA � � ZS :' � o �, cn m �' %' � g m � N-i g o° S o°o °o o° °o o° $$$$ � � z A � � N � � a �' C7t .. �I J O � i � O z r � — ;�' �, � �, a. v. �, o � � � � � � � � � � � � � �wao$ 800 �° S�Q� � ��.��,�N�N mI,I� �18151� V � m G1) � f1�a N N O a G�J� Op �{� ...•. m cn v cn �i .�o � C�n � S V IG I� IO I[n IO IO m N � a � s z N � . . . I.. i- OPTION 1 � 1 i t � i i i t � i � t i � � 1 i 1 I ! I 1 1 i i t i t i � � � i i� �o 0 Mid-Block Slow PointL hicane Serpentine curb protrusions offset from each other in mid-block locations that narrow the width of the roadway and help reduce traffic speeds and improve safety. ..,. ---� . _ . . �r_� •-.,-_. �� - t �, � > y . . - --_- - .:�� ,� : -�-__ _ _`_ .:--: . ,% r ,-� -' �- 9 . ,> - - F -_ - _ = �� rF : _ > r: : . ; = - �• — -°�---- .--- _ <�?°' �. �—= --_ -- - --- .�::' c'___ .::- ; _=i':.. . . ,� _.. .. . -__ .-- _- -`� -..--------- � � -- — � _ . -'- � OPTION 2 Existing pavement to be removed �� Pavement to be added I 1 I 1 � I � i I � I � i � � I � i � � � i � � � i t � �� 1 • I � � I � � � � I � I � I • T � i � � � �� .� Pavernent to be added 40 0 Serpentine curb protrusions with corresponding curb intrusions in mid block location to form a slight S-curve that does not narrow the width of the roadway yet does help to reduce tra.f�ic speed and improve safety. � Existing pavement to be removed i __ I . .. ' � ; - � _- . �-.'•� . l: � .: . _ , _ ' � r / � �i �� !; d �� a � ---- .� _ n � � � � �� _ � � f� �� ' ` `4 � � of' • � � � ' � � ��^��.�.�� i I 1 1! I I ;� ;� �� ,� -- ��--}--�-�---- � I� � �Q. Q� �� i, - ---- _ - -- -- - _ ORDINANCE NO. 614 CITY OF MOUNDS V�W COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA ! , f _ � � �� _ F � ___� _� ,_-r ------ � - �� ...v_..�_ . . __ . . AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF FIVE PARCELS ABUTTING EASTWOOD ROAD FROM R-1 AND R-3 TO B-2 FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE TO BE LOCATED NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD I AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 10 AND ANIENDING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION l. Appendix A of the Nlounds View Municipal Code entitled "Specific Rezonings", the City's Official Zoning Map and zoning district classification are hereby amended as follows: 1. The zoning district classification of the following described real properties are amended from R-1, Single Family Residential to B-2, Limited Business: S'/z Lot 51, Spring Lake Park Hillview (PIN # 06-30-23-44-0032) N'/a Lot 50, Spring Lake Park Hillview (PIN # 06-30-23-44-0031) S'/z Lot 50, Spring Lake Park Hillview (PIN # 06-30-23-44-0030) Lot 49, Spring Lake Park Hillview (PIN # 06-30-23-44-0029) 2. The zoning district classification of the following described real property is amended from R-3, Niedium Density Residential to B-2, Limited Business: Lot 78, Spring Lake Park Hillview (PIN # 06-30-23-44-0051) SECTION 2. This Ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 13th day of April, 1998. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 27th day o�April, 1998. _ __ _ _ _ _ . -- -- _- . . - �_. - _ - - - --- - - — -- ..- - � - --_ - - -- - k� Ordinance 614 Page 2 Duane McCarty, Mayor ATTEST: Charles Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert Long, City Attorney N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCAS GS1507-971TOLD2.ORD � • � _ � '-�_� � � ^ . � _ _ _._ i F - °x_.___.:= - - =' " � _ : _ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CONIlVIISSION RESOLUTIGN NO. 538-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF l�'IINNTSOTA A RESOLUTION RECOMIV�NDING A,PPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 614, .AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE REZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2625 HIGHWAY 10 AND 7715-7761 EASTWOOD ROAD FROM R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND R-1, SINGLE FAIVIILY RESIDENTIAL, TO B-2, LIlVIITED BUSINESS DISTRICT; PLANNING CASE NO. 507-97. WHEREAS, TOLD Development Company has applied for a rezoning of the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road from residential to commercial; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties are described as follows: The Soutl: '/ of Lot Sl, All of Lot S0, Lot 49 and Lot 78, �'pring Lake Parlc Hzllview, Ramsey County, Mannesota WHEREAS, this rezoning request is to be acted on in tandem with a comprehensive plan amendment requested by the applicant which changes the land use designations from Low and High Density Residential (LD & HD) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC); and, VVHEREAS, the rezoning request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the comprehensive plan amendment request is approved by the Mounds View City Council; and, VVHEREAS, the subject properties form a contiguous tract of land at the northeast corner of the Highway 10 and County Road I, an intersection having the highest traffic counts of any intersection within the City; and, WI�REAS, the other three corners of this above-cited intersection have already developed with high intensity commercial uses; and, WI�REAS, allowed uses in a limited business distrcit would be low-intensity commercial, which would serve as a transition into the establisherl residenrial nei ghborhood; and, WHEREAS, a use of this type should serve as a benefit to the immediate area; and, WHEREAS, the developer has indicated that the proposed use would fill a need for a growing demographic group within the immediate area; and, Planning Commission Resolution No. 538-98 March 18, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, there has been much community sentiment regarding the inappropriateness of future residential development fronting Highway 10; and, VVHEREAS, in a study completed by SRF Consulting in April, 1997, the property at 2625 Highway 10 was deemed to be too restrictive for stand-alone development due to access limitations and size constraints; and, WHEREAS, the SRF study indicated that development potential of the property located at 2625 Highway 10 would be enhanced if combined with adjacent properties; and; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt Ordinance 614, and ordinance approving the rezoning of properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-61 Eastwood Road to B-2, Limited Business District. BE IT FURTI�R RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this lst day of April, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community De'velopment Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV \DEV CASES\507-97\538-98PC.RFS ; �'- f ,i � -'-- ---- ": ,� " '� �' -'- •, - . _ _ . . - F . - - _ . . + -�I �... . -: . p �- . MOUNDS ViEW PLANNING COMIVIISSION RESOLUTION NO. 536-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY UF R.AMSEY STATE OF 1��NN�SOTA RESOLUTION RECONIlVIENDING APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LO W DENSITY AND ffiGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2625 HIGHWAY 10 AND 7715-7761 EASTWOOD ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. 50'7-97. WHEREAS, TOLD Development Company has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment which would change the designation of the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road from high and low density residential to neighborhood commercial; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties are described as follows: The Soutlt '/ of Lat Sl, All of Lot S0, Lot 49 and Lot 78, Spring Lake Park Hillview, Ramsey County, Minnesota WI�REAS, Section 401.09 of the Mounds View Municipal Code sta.tes that the City has adopterl the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mounds View, dated 1979, as its plan for future development and growth within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View adopted the 1979 Comprehensive Plan in 1982 by Resolution No. 1467; and, VVHEREAS, the 1979 Comprehensive Plan places the subject properties in District 6 and designates these properties for both high and low density residential development as indicated by Exhibit 1, attached herewith; and, V�I�REAS, both the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning map designate these properties for residential development; and, WHEREAS, there has been much community sentiment regarding the inappropriateness of future residential development fronting Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, in a study completed by SRF Consulting in April, 1997, the property at 2625 Highway 10 was deemed to be too restrictive for stand-alone development due to access limitations and size constraints; and, , , - - , - _ __ - - _ - - < . - . --_, °' - _ _ � -_- -- __ _ — _ , ,.. -_- . -- -= �- ---� --> � -- � - . _ ___ _ ---- - -=- � -- - -- - , .:� :. Planning Commission Resolution No. 536-98 April l, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, the SRF study indicated that development potential of the property located at 2625 Highway 10 would be enhanced if combined with adjacent properties; and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that the proposed amendment is consistent with the general land use goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: Goal 1. Develop a cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatibility and functional relafionships among acriviries and uses. The change from high density and low density residential to neighborhood commercial will allow for the commercial development of the northeast corner of the Highway 10 and County Road I intersection, an intersection that already supports three corners of higher intensity commercial uses--a Hardees Restaurant and the Moundsview Square Shopping Center, a SuperAmerica gas sta.tion and convenience store, and a Burger King Restaurant. Given the high traffic counts at this intersection, it would seem more appropriate to use the land for commercial rather than residential development. The proposed amendment is in keeping with the community goal of limiting commercial development to the Highway 10 corridor. The neighborhood commercial designation is the least common designation used in the comprehensive plan, representing less than one-quarter of one percent of the properties in the City. The proposed use would be set back approximately 130 feet from neighboring residential properties and separated by a minimum 70 feet of greenspace and other physical buffering. The neighborhood commercial designation, as opposed to the more intensive highway commercial designation, would in itself be a buffer to the adjoining residential properties. Goal 2. Maintain and, where necessary, upg�rade land uses and environmental quality. The policy under this goal directs attention to protecting integrated use districts (residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, industrial parks) from penetration by through traffic. By virtue of its proximity to Highway 10 and County Road I, the residential district already experiences a penetration of through traffic. Redeveloping the subject properties for a commercial use will add to the existing traffic in this residential district. The tradeoff, however, is that Eastwood Road would no longer feed into the Highway 10 / County Road I intersection thus eliminating a notable point of conflict and with the addition of a right turn lane onto Highway 10 from westbound County Road I, the overall functioning of the intersection will be significantly improved. Goal 3. Preserve ancl protect property values. _ � - � � Planning Commission Resolution No. 536-98 April 1, 1998 Page 3 � _ �� .. � � . - -- — = �=_- ��: � � ; - - �� - - -- -- It is hoped that in the long run, property values will increase with the introduction of a lower-intensity neighborhood commercial use at the corner of the most traveled intersection of the City. The positive impact to the City's tax base will serve to lessen the ta�c burden to residential properties across the City. Goal 4. Ensure communiry development is compatible with features of ihe natural environment and is accommoclated without destroying desirable environmental features and natural amenities. Other than a few mature trees present on the subject properties, there are no natural environmental features or amenities that will be threatened or degraded as a result of the proposed development. The plans for development will include a system for capturing stormwater run-off for the subject properties which should improve condi�ions for properties immediately adjacent to the development. In so doing, the quality of the stormwater that now runs untreated into the City's sewer system will be significantly improved. Goa15. Prevent development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities (utilities, parking, access, etc.) The properties are located on Highway 10, a principal arterial and the major thoroughfare in Mounds View, and County Road I, a minor arterial street. While adequate opportunity for access to the development is available to County Road I, access may not be possible onto Highway 10 because of the limited highway frontage. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDO'I') will need to review and approve any requests for access onto Highway 10. Water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, gas and electric lines are available. Comments from the Blaine/Spring Lake Park/Mounds View Fire Department regarding access to the subject properties as well as to the properties on a dead-end Eastwood Road indicate that as long as there is a sufficient turning radius at the end of the cul-de-sac, no reduction in the level of service or response time would be expected. The parldng requirements would be examined during the development review. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following additional findings that the proposed amendment is consistent with the commercial goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: Goal l. Commercial development shall be considered in order to provide a broad tax and expanded employment base within Mounds View. Redesignating the subject properties to allow for the development of a specific neighborhood commercial use will increase the City's tax base ten-fold and create 35 positions, more than _ __ _ _ ' � = _ ' - '' >:_:: - _ : : : -� �-� -_------ _: -- - -- - =- -_ _� ;, � • -_ , Planning Coznmission Resolution No. 536-98 April 1, 1998 Page 4 half of which would be full-time positions. Many of the jobs created would be filled by Mounds View residents. Goal 2. Provide safe, convenient, attracrive, and accessible commercial deveiopment within Mounds View. The development proposed at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and County Road I would be put through an intensive review process by which all aspects of the building design and site layout would be examined. The proposed use would be buffererl from the adjacent residential areas by an expanse of greenspace, plantings and a fence. In terms of convenience, a neighborhood commercial use at this location would give those residents living north of County Road I and east of �Iighway 10 the ability to walk for certain goods and services without having to cross either thoroughfare, which are viewed as major barriers to pedestrian and other non-vehicular trafiic. To encourage pedestrian use, the City would require that a sidewalk be extended to the site from Greenwood Drive on the north side of County Road I and there would be a pedestrian access from Eastwood Road to the north. Goal 3. Major retail sales and services will be developed in planned and concentrated centers. Now that the majority of the available vacant land within the City is either developed or is slated for development, this goal may not be as applicable as infill development becomes more prevalent. However, if one considers that by locating on the fourth corner of an intersection already populated with higher intensity commercial uses, then this goal is met. The development will provide for its own stormwater retention and treatment system. Goal 4. The development of small, neighborhood convenience stores will be limited to locations which best serve residential areas without impairing residential development. Any development proposed for this site will be put through an intensive review process through which compatibility with the character of the surrounding neighborhood will be strongly encouraged. The access to the proposed use will be convenient for the sunounding community and non-vehicular traffic will be encouraged through the installation of pathways and sidewalks. WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan land use map designation for District 6 is proposed to be amended as shown on Exhibit 2, attached herewith. L._ . . . __ - ��} .. - .. _'; � s-_ ' . . _ , - _. �� .. . . . ! � _�_ ' � ' � � � l ..� If _ � —__ _ __��__��_ ��.��c_�. _ _ _ _--. ' ___ _- _ - _ ..�,.____—, � �. ... .'_ - .__ .` ' __— �' "�_.- '�_ •� � �' - .�'� -�.��•. =i�_ .___'__. � . . � _ _ _ : _ -- �. _. _ - _ . J� h . . _ _. . _ - � .,.. --� -_-- -_ "_' . : _ _ .__ '. - �� -' Planning Commission Resolution No. 536-98 April 1, 1998 Page 5 NOW, 'I�3EREFORE, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate the south '/z of Lot S1 and all of Lots 50, 49 and 78 to NC, Neighborhood Commercial. BE IT FUR'THER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to farward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this lst day of April, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIDEV CAS ES\507-97\536-98PC.RES c � _ ; ` -_ _ l . .. �> � - - - - --_ - . _-' _ :=�' � _ R. � _ — ---- - — — - -- — � REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSIO(V ACTION Meeting Date: Staff Report by: Planning Case No.: Itequest: Petitioner: Location: PIN Nos.: Legal Description: Zoning/Land Use: Applicabte Regulations: April 1, 1998 James Ericson, Planning Associate 514-97 Development Review Bridges Leasing Company, LC 8400 Coral Sea Street OS-30-23-21-0003 Lot 2, Block 1, North Star Industrial2nd Addition I-1, Light Industrial District / undeveloped lot • Development Review: Section 1006.06 requires that all commercial and industrial development within the City be subject to review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. • • • Setbacks: Section 1104.01 establishes the principal building and parking lot setbacks. These will be addressed in the analysis section of this report. Minimum Lot Size: Section 1104.02, Subd. 2 establishes the minimum lot size in an the Industrial Zone as one acre (43,560 square feet.) Parking Requirements: Section 1121.13 sets the requirements for parking ratios. Summary: The applicant, Bridges Technology Park, has applied for a development review to expand their existing building located at 8400 Cora1 Sea Street. The new addition will be 35,188 square feet for a total build-out of 64,376 square feet. The building will be 10,188 square feet of offce space and 25,000 square feet of warehouse space. The site is currently zoned I-1, Industrial District, which allows this use. This parcel is undeveloped with the western edge of the property in wetland, and the remaining area covered by dense tree cover. The proposed expansion will match th� design and style of the eYisting building. _ --"- �� F I z `_ - - a -- - ------ ---- _- `- - -- -_- --- -- ----- =---, ,_.,_�_.>. --_- -. , . . .. > � _ �, .� .. . - - _ . �: s � . . , Planning Commission Report Bridges Technology Park Phase II Planning Case 514-98 March 27, 1998 Page 2 Discussion: Damensional Requirements: Lot Area: Building Height: Building Elevation: Building Setbacks � Front (Coral Sea St.) • Side • Rear: Parking Lot Setbacics ° Front (Coral Sea St.): • Side: Re uir d 1 acre S 45 feet >_ 901.6 feet 40 feet 20 feet 40 feet 40 feet 5 feet Provided 2.59 acres 18 feet 908.5 feet 40 feet 70 feet 160+ feet 40 feet 5 feet Drainage, Wetland Consider•ations and Wetland Alteration Permit• Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes This lot was platted as part of the Northstar Industrial Park 2nd Addition. At the time of platting, a comprehensive drainage plan was prepared which identified the ponding requirements for Lots 1, 2 and 3. The major wetland along the western boundary of these lots was also delineated at that time. The applicant is proposing a drainage system which coordinates with the earlier plan. There will be a storm drain at the rear of the building to capture the building a parking lot runoff, directing it to the existing stormwater retention/detention pond behind the existing building. The runoff in the front of the building will drain into a catch basin which is then directed to the City of Blaine's storm sewer under Coral Sea Street. Because work is being done within 100 feet of the wetland, the applicant will need to have a wetland buffer permit approved by the City. From the site plans, the new parking area will be eight feet from the delineated edge of the wetland, but will not encroach into the wetland. The existing building and parking lot come within 13 feet of the wetland, but no closer. The applicant will have prepared a revision to the site plan prior to the meeting of thee Planning Commission which shows where the 100-foot wetland buffer is, indicating the amount of impervious surface within the buffer. Rice Creel< Watershed District has reviewed the applicant's drainage plans and has approved them pendin� payment of a cash surety and dedication of an easement area over the existing wetlands on site. Parkin�' The parking ratios as required in the City Code fbr office and warehouse uses are as follows: Office: 3 spaces plus 1 per 175 square feet of floor area Warehouse: 8 spaces plus 1 per 500 square feet of floor area ____ .. : � _ ' _ - ---- - . ' _�.,� : _� Planning Commission Report Bridges Technology Park Ph1se II Planning Case 514-98 March 27, 1998 Page 3 Using these ratios and the breakdown of floor area presented above, the expanded building area would require a total of 119 spaces, of which 61 would be for the office floor area and 58 for the warehouse space. Five handicap stalls will need to be shown on the plans, at least one of which will need to be van accessible. Only four handicap stalls are shown all of which are van accessible. To be in compliance with the parking requirements, an additional 27 stall s would need to be added, unless the applicant can show that the e�sting building is currently overparked. Easement Vacation: By way of the platting of the North Star Industrial2nd Addition, perimeter drainage and utility easements were dedicated to the City. The proposed building expansion and development will cross over the set of easements between Lots 2 and 3 of that plat. These easements will need to be vacated before any construction activity can begin. The legal description for the easement area to be vacated has been forwarded to the City Attorney, who is drafting an Ordinance to accomplish the vacation. This Ordinance will be presented to the City Council after or in conjunction with the Council approval of this development review. Other Issaces.• • Landsca�ing; The City Forester, Rick Wriskey, has reviewed the landscape plans and finds them to be acceptable. • Public Safetv: The Fire Nlarshal for the City of Mounds View, Mark Bishop, has reviewed the plans as submitted by the applicant and finds the access and drive aisles to be in conformance with Fire Department requirements and standards. • Utilities: The building expansion will take all its utilities from the existing building. Water and sewer are accessed through the City of Blaine, as is sanitary sewer. • Easements; An easement document will need to be drafted which dedicates to the City a drainage and utility easement over that area within the delineated wetland plus a minimum five-foot buffer beyond the wetland. Recommend�tion: The Planning Commission shall direct the applicant to revise the site plans as it deems necessary and shall direct staffto prepare a resolution recommending approval of the development review to be acted on at the April 15, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. James Ericson, Planning Associate -- ----�" .-�! � ._ __ - � - -�� G� - r .l --- ---- _ - - — --- ---- - -- `= -�_.__ �. :__ _,� _ . �. _ ��. _ ._ _ . _. � , Planning Commission Report Bridges Technology Pazk Phase II Planning Case 514-98 March 27, 1998 Page 4 Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plans, dated 3/6/98 N:�DATAIGROUPSICOMDEV�DEVCAS CS1514-98�.51497.PC 1 I r.... � - 03/OJ/93 09:59 FAY 812 784 9462 Y �~ �� i� Ilj'iv'�r^.:Y . d ' � � i:� :z� �r��+ - �.m�^�''Q• �►ppGcaat Informatjoo Name of Applica�c Address CITY OF ]fV (�j0o:/o05 CON�i;��TINTI-y DEyEZ.OPMEIY'r DEPAR7;1�� DEVEZOPME�I"I' A.ppLTCanON 3401 Fi`ighway � 0, Mounds �ew � 55 I I2 Pfewe Type or �'rie[ Intorn�aeion _�omplete $och Side� of'�jy go� 6I2-7I7-402� 612-�84--346Z - FAX asin Compan ,LLC Telephone -1500 a St . Suite 10C� F�.� 12 780-1515 55449 Ynte�,t in ProQerry (cfteck approQ�iacc box) �¢ Oa+ner of PropettY ❑ Cona set for Decd awner � Lasrc. Operacor, I�Lzaagcr ❑ Agreemeae w Purzhase Q Ochtr (expla;.n) .�pplirsnb m�t pcovidc evidc�ce of iaeervt ia p�perty at the time o(appiiratioq, aad if you acc uot t6C ow�ne= nt thc propeccy, you rauxt prov�d� a leeter o( per�u�ion frnm the awner giving con�eut to ehe filibg of thu app�eacion. ?he propercy nwner mu�i �ign chis applimtioo for it to he �ccepted_ Pro�erty De�eription/prapo�nl ^ ddr�ss or G�aaral Lacatioo ,�I Descripaon PrePe�r�, zarna&csaon # (PI�r � # of AcZzs Curtaac Znn;ag -- ' ... t., Suite 100, Blaine, MN SS449 k 1 North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition nS��2�21��p3 ey Co., MN dustrial Type of Applicstioq � Comprehcasive P1an Amendm� Q Re�oing o Major Subdi.+isioa a I�nor Subdi�ision a �c��a c.r�t D��oPm�� c.rD� a PUD Amendrarnt a Condicional Use Pr,�mic � Variaace a Code Appea[ � Deve[op Rc++iew/Sie� Pian �o wectaad.vrc�aaao Perm;c a w�a�a B�a p�� a �aodp(aia Pcrmic a ochcr SZSO ' 5250lac� min ,5250 mvc Si�00 SZSO + SZSQ depasit* SZQO R�er co tr2ening fees 5;50 R-1, R-2 575; a(1 ot6ess �ZSO • R- (. R-Z S 100 all athets .SZ50 s tI00 S l ZS/aciz; mia S l ZS max 5150 —��'�s� 0 6 R-I, R 2 SI50: aij othe�s �Z00 R- I, R 2 SZS: alI ochers S I o0 nao '�eposi�s shsll be paid ro cov�►r- �j� �scs oFpubLic qotieQ mat�rals a,ad sZaffar constil[aat time �peat in che revizw, c°-:�rrh or peaparation uf materials �sso�:intrd �vith chis zpp(ieujon. The applicaat s6zll be t�spons�ble L"or a.l1 �oab[C i � eoscs ia eSCCSS ot thG iaitial dcposic �otlnc Aav portion oF rh� drposic noc �penc or taeu:nbez�ed,hall be �cfisndcd �. .pplic.ane wie(sia etuciy (�Q) days �tter catLSidcs�tian ot the appliation is compirced Pfeaae complete ehe ceverae �ide of rhit •r�piicsr(oa. ��. ��. yo ua: �a r�s �t� ��4 34g2 CITX OF 3iV Cty of l�rounds Yrew, l�( Develo ment �i, licatioo Prescue Use of Proper�y ;g Undevclopcd/y�c�� D��'lI'wa Furm.Iy DWelling Q 6usittess/Commerctal Esublishrarnt Q Ochet (c�cplaia) ProP�rt}' Classif�cation D�cription ofProposal o Single Family Dwelling Q Multi-farn,7y Dv�eUiag a Indtisa�iat Fstnbliihtncu � Abstracc ❑ Torrens ion of 2nd phase building project as shown oc � or us�ria ar _ BY MY (OUR) SIGIVANRE pN TIIIS P�PpLIC ��G� � �NFaRM.a,TIUN pROVID Siganture oL'AppGcznc Narue of AppLic� (�YP�Arinead) IaN, f E�REB y DECJ�R� �T. TO THE gEST OF MY IS TRUE aND ' CC �, �- sident .c; h & �Ci. , nc . Si�acure ofPropecty O�ncr � �/ �' -, N�e ofProP�Y �wner (typedlp��' Acldress of Owrtc�c- � �, � Cora1 Sea , Suite 100 � MN 55449 Phane Nutnber of Ownc� - 500 � 8201 � � �•a��"•,r�r�ay�a ra.��,�,*�,r+rM��a ra�raa�.ra��asr�+sw�rrMti,r.�a�r�.+�s�r�,r,rrr.nrawas#*r,uaa'+�rsaraarrs�� Date ofSubmicta! r rUK o��E IISE Ol�ity Dace of A S � ^ � � �Ptms� -� ' `+ k Planning Cise No. � J�{., g g 60-day Limic S-'—�� IZ�-duy Gmie � Fe�s Paid Applicacaa -�3 7`� - o?� Paric Daiicaacn; Dc�osi�s: 0 [hcr: Totsl: v:1DA'T.�ICROUpSlCOF4p EV�FO R1�IS1DEVq,pP. FO R Acwimt # � CBc�k � � OD Re�cipc # Jfv. --__ u9a � oosioo5 � ee l � �; � _ _ k > = _- _ - - ' _ - =--- " '--- = - — ._-- : — > > r,::a. _��''�• � J�::•:{ • � 8133 �s'.. 8123 � d � i 849a I s �I WI \\ �I � �\8450 � Proposed \ � _ '�.�� ' ........, ..._.. . Existing � � I_ 1 8400 N � _ I � � PF �I o� �I I az90 L � _ 82N� LANE —�T o � � m I N I _- — ( \ ----____ . . I . . :'�� _ � /.'.': � TyE. BRI pGES G��F .. cOv ��:�:: RS� ywy N NTN I N 1 N I N I N �y ' l�1PORT DR N W ... .......... . r O p � p� r�7 M M I� M M � � � N N N N N N N N N N O 8141 81 813o p 81 8120 � 8121 .- r�t v� n a� O O f� c0 � V' �t r7 N M M � d' 8110 liJ 8101 N N � � n r� r� r� � N Zoning Map Planning Case 514-98 Applicant: Bridges Technology Park (Phase II) Location: 8400 Coral Sea Street �� 6 � � CRP 1L�� -_ F .i.�: =, �. ..__-_._ ..t' � .:..... -- _.,� . _,.; _ . _ _- - - ~ �-��' -�__. ='�� . _: -_ ..__.---_ . . . - .--- - � . _. Item No. ��7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: Staff Report by: Planning Case No.: Request: Petitioner: PIN Nos. Zoning/Land Use: Applicable Regulations: l. 2. 3. April 1,1998 Rick Jopke, Community Development Director 471-97/517-98 Development Stage Review, Wetland Buffer Perrrut, and Preliminaiy Plat for the Anthony Properties Management/O'Neil PUD Anthony Properties Management / Louise O'Neil 08-30-23-23-0003 PUD, Planned Unit Development / Vacant Land Section 1120.04, Subd. 3 and Section 1120.05, Subd. 2 of the Municipal Code provide requirements for PUD development reviews. Title 1200 of the Municipal Code provides procedures and design requirements applicable to the subdivision of land within the City of Mounds View. Title 1010 of the Municipal Code provides requirements and procedures for the issuance of wetland buffer pernuts. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Resolution No. 5104 Resolution No. 5119 Ordinance No. 598 Approved General Concept Site Plan Site Plan, Grading, Draina.ge, Erosion Control, Landscape and Utility Plans Dated 3/6/98 Theater Elevation Drawings Office Elevation Drawings Illustrative Sign Drawings Letter from Julie Ann OLsen Dated 3/23/98 1 _ __ _ ' , ; - � -------- - - = `- -_ - _-- _ 1 �� _ � - - ---- - --_ - - =_ -= -- - � _.�— --. ;� =- � � - _ -- £ -- -= - -- - _ Background: Introduction: This item is intended for informational purposes only. No action is necessary by the plannuig commission on April 1. The proposed plans are still in the process of being reviewed by city staff and other agencies. It is anticipated that the review will be complete in order for the planning corrunission to take formal action at the April 15, 1998 meeting. No formal public notice has been provided for the April 1,1998 meeting. Full public notice will be provided for the April 15, 1998 meeting. Project Summary_: The site in question is located at 2430 Highway 10. The 26.03 acre site is triangular in shape and is bounded by Highway 10, Long Lake Road, and County Road H2. The property is owned by the O'Neil family and is under contract for purchase and development by Anthony Properties Management. Anthony Properties Management is proposing to develop a 63,000 square foot 15- screen 2188-seat movie theater, three 11,000 square foot one-story offce buildings, a 5000 square foot restaurant, and a 6�00 square foot retail building. The movie theater would be operated by Carmike Theaters. An 8.25 acre wetland would remain undeveloped on the site. Total greenspace on the site after development would be 16.73 acres which is 64.3 % of the total site area. Impervious area including parking areas and buildings would comprise 9.3 acres or 35.7 % of the total site area. Parking for a total of 776 cars is provided on the site. 82 parking stalls are shown for the restaurant site, 49 parking stalls are provided for the retail site, 548 parking stalls are provided for the theater, and 97 parking stalls a.te provided for the office buildings. Joint use of the theater and office parking is indicated because offsetting hours. At the time of the writing of this report, staffhad not received a copy of the preliminary plat or a site lighting plan. The applicant has indicated that these plans are heing worked on and will be submitted in the near future. The property will be subdivided into 6 lots, one lot for each of the buildings. The wetland area will be included in the theater lot. Previous A�provaLs: On May 12, 1997 the City Council approved Resolution No. 5104 which changed the comprehensive plan designation of the subject site from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use PUD (Commercial and Residential Uses). The City Council on the same night gave first reading to Ordinance No. 598 which rezoned the site from B-1 Neighborhood Business and R-2 Single and Two Family Residential to PUD for commercial uses. Resolution No. 5119 was also approved on May 12, 1997 which approved a General Concept PUD Plan for the site. Second reading and passage of Ordinance No. 598 occurred on May 27, 1997. Copies of the approved resolutions and ordinance are attached for your information. _'�I rF-� . .;- __ . , � -. -y I. - ==—v- — •�'.__:.e — �=-- -. _ . ---. .---. . - -' .. � -- - --- —�� .. . �:_ ."" " ' ':' -. _ - � . -. ,�— � . .. _ ' _"_""_' ' . _' ' I . PUD A�roval: There are three steps to approval of a PUD. These include general concept plan, development stage plan, and final plan. As indicated above, the city has previously appraved a general concept plan. The applicant has now submitted a development stage plan for city approval. 1120.04 Subdivision 3 of the Municipal Code outlines the procedure for development stage plan approval. The code states that the Planning Commission shall review the plan and submit a written report and recommendations to the City Cou.ncil with respect to the conformity of the development sta�e plan to the general concept plan, with respect to the merit or lack of inerit of any departure of the development stage plan frotn substantial conformity with the concept plan, and with respect to the compliance of the development stage plan with the provisions of this Title and other applicable Federal, State and local codes and ordinances. No public hearing before the Planning Commission is required by the City Code. 1120.04 Subdivision 3f. outlines the following review and evaluation criteria for development stage plans: 1. Adequate property control is provided to protect the individual owner's rights and property values and the public responsibility for own maintenance and upkeep. 2. The interior circulation plan plus access from and onto public rights of way does not create congestion or dangers and is adequa.te for the safety of the project residents and the general public. 3. A sufficient amount of usable open space is provided. 4. The arrangernent of buildings, structures, and accessory uses does not unreasonably disturb the privacy or property values of the surrounding residential uses. 5. The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding area. 6. The draina.ge and utility system plans are submitted to and subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 7. The development schedule insures a logical development of the site which will protect the public interest and conserve land. 8. The development is in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 1010 and Titles 1200 and 1300 of this code. 9. Dwelling unit and accessory use requirements are in compliance with the district provisions in which the development is planned. Plan Chan�es: The following differences e:cist between the proposed development stage plan and the approved general concept plan as outlined in Resolution No. 5119: 1. Parcel B is designated as a retail site instead of a restaurant site. 2. The movie theater seating has been reduced from 2648 seats to 2188 seats. The number of screens has been reduced from 16 to 15. t-'__ ... _u_ ., . :-= � —=• - =` - - __— _ __ �; I� `_.'��c�..� :��I ��-r`- --- _ - " - 3. The site area has increased from 23.99 acres to 26.03 acres. 4. Impervious site area has decreased from 36.9 % of the site area to 35.7 %. Pervious area has increased from 63.1 % of the site area to 64.3 %. 5. The northernmost and southeznmost driveways on Highway 10 remain on the plan. 6. Sidewallcs are shown along Highway 10 and along the northern edge of the wetland. 7. Trash encloswres aze shown for each of the buildings. 8. The two NURP stormwater ponds have been replaced with one large pond. This is due to the fact that city stormwater from north and east of the site will be piped to the new pond to help alleviate e�cisting stormwater problems in the area. 9. Snow storage areas are shown on the plan. 10. No access is shown to Long Lake Road as was encouraged as part of the general concept plan approval. 11. Deceleration lanes are shown on the plan. A detailed staff review of the plans and of the changes will be provided to the Planning Commission once all the comments have been received from the other agencies. Recommendation: As previously mentioned no action is required. Staff and the applicant will be present to discuss the project with the Plaruung Commission. Any questions and/or additional information needed should be identified. N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASESk171-9�1517-98. PC 1 4 Feb 11 98 02:43p ��:T�y , n.? 4y,: ,� ,yy, I��,�(��tAVC``iL; ) .� N ��!1��'^ �pC:..� ... , ... , S ��f� ° I�4liltily~�1I App(icant Information Name of Applicant Address Wendell R. Smith � 612-484-0699 p.l COIVIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT =% DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 240I Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612-7I 7-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Infoemation - Complete Bot6 Sides of This Form AP MOUNDS VZEW L]MITED PARTNERSgIp Telephone 972-991-4484 12770 COIT ROAD F� 972-991-4494 SUITE 1170 DALLAS TX 75251 Interest in Properiy (check appropriute box) o Owner of Properry o Contract for Deed Owner � Lcssee, Operator, Manager � �greement to Purchase q Other (explain) Applicants mu�t p�ovide evidence of intere�t in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a tettec of permi9aion from t6e owner giving consent to the filing of this appiicaiion. The property owner must sign this appiication for it to be accepted. �perty Descriptioo/Proposal Nddress or General Location Legal Description Property Idencification # (PIN �) � of Acres Current Zoning 2430 HTGHG�Y 10/LONG LAKE ROAD & COUNTY ROAD H-2 SEE ATTACHED 083023230003 Type of Application o Comprehensive Plan Amendm�at a Rczoning � Major Subdivision � Minor Subdivision Q Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment o Conditional Use Pertnit a Vananc� Q Code App�al � Develop Review/Sit� Plan ❑ Wetlan�l Altera[ion Permit � Wetland Buf�er Permit Q Floodpiain Permit ❑ Other �u-� $250 $250/acre; min $250 max $ I �00 �250 + �Z50 deposit* �T200 Refer to rezoning fees 5350 R-1, R-2 $75; al! others $250 R-1, R-Z �7�; all others $2�0 $100 $ l 25/acre; min $125 max $750 R- l, R-2 � I 50; all others $200 R-1, R-? �25; all others � 100 �200 __posits sha1l bz paid to covei' all cosCS of publie nocices, materiuls and stat�or consultani time spent in the review, reszarch or preparation of materials associated with tivs applicacion. The appiicanc shall be responsibie for ail reasonable mcurred eosts in e:ccess of the initial deposit amount. Anv portion o%[he deposit not spent or enetunbered shall be retunded �o the applican� within thirty (30) days atter consideraqon of the applieation is completed. '� � F�� -'� t : � -.. - �`"`--f--�- - - -- Fek� ll 98 02:43p C+ty of 11Qounds View. ,9�iT( Dtwelo mcnt A Gcarion We, ae l l R. Sm i th C � �._.1� � �.� � _ - :;� �; -:, � _, _,. Present Usc of Prbpe�Y � UndevclapedN�c�� Q �uPl�xfl'wo �amily Dwelling f � Sin !c� � g smily Dw�iing g��o��ial Est�blishmcn[ � ��(ulti•f�y Dwellin8 Q Othcr (explain) � �w�ie! Establishme.nt Properry C1�csificurioa � Qescciprioa of Pm,posal Absr�act � Tor�s 61� r84-Q699 BY :�y (0�) SIGNATZ,7tE ON �S ,,�ppr ICATION,1 c I�10 WL,�GE, i!-(� INFp�,',�.1TION PRO V�jED IS �R._.�Y D�CLARE rHAT. TO 1� BEST OF tvfy � L�� t Y Si�atllre of Applica,�t I N�une ot.qppGcane (cyp�dJorincrcl) R. JA� : � =,N'I`H0, Si�anue of ProAer�S,' �wncr � �"' ,- , j Name nf Pr ' 7 }"' ,� "�T � , r'�,..,-� � . ��'ty �"fi"r (t!'Prd/FRater!) LOUISE 0' ��ETL � � �"��-' Addrrss af Owner 1 \, � - -� Phone Numbcr ot' On'tie� 17_ _� �_ ,as�ls#r�+FK:t:af�a#rt�kaad�;re# 7ww�«�7it+fs#:�t+�riTrs��.iYa�e:aw.t.ss+►*TSf.tii»7'��s•NFa«tsa��sWS+sMt ��+�+�rss�r• Date of Submitt�l FOR pFFICE US� OM,y Dace of ,0.cceprn�ce P�anning Co�c No. 60,�y Lirrilc `�'gnecl to: --t� 120•daY limit 1-�, . Fees P�id: Applicacion: ^��ount � � C'r.zck � Receipt � P�c�C D�dicntion; Deposirs: ow�� racai: �:'�ATA!GROI./p�C0�1DE��FARtirs�C�v.�a cno rnn: r.nnr�, a2e z P•2 � - ;�� ,� I � � ____ _ ��_ >. - ; , .- -_ 1 :1' MI► The southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, lying southwesterly of State Trunk Highway No. 10-62, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. And All that part of the northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, lying southwesterly of State Trunk Highway No. 10, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. Containing 1,133,997 square feet or 26.979 acres. � �v _ f ' - � ` . > _ -- - - - _ — —=° -< _- - - � . - JOE BE.ITON �Dr1ITTED iN .�L.�SK.� ND TIINNESOT.\ February 19, 1998 �SEPH G. BEATON, JR., LTr ATTORNEYS .\T L.\��' 3108 HENNEPIN .�.�'ENUE SOUTH rIINNEAPOLIS, A[INNESOTA 35408 E-�i.1IL:beato001 �tc.umn.edu Chuck Whiting City Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Moundsview, Minnesota 55112 Re: O'Neil Property Dear Mr. Whiting: VOICE �IAII.: 871-4604 PAGER (612) (340-(3057 1IOB[LF (612) 7fl1-2182 Fr1�C (G12) 8.71-3(394 This letter will confirm that the property owned by Louise O'Neil on Highway 10 across from City Hall is now under a ground lease to Anthony Properties d/b/a AP Mounds View i,imited l'arincrship. Anthony Properties Management, Inc. is the general partner of the partnership. R. Jay Anthony, as President, is authorized on behalf of Louise H. O'Neil to proceed on behalf of Louise H. O'Neil with the subdivision of this property. We appreciate your efforts and those of the city staff, Planning Commission and City Council to make this a good development for your City. We look forward to working with you in the future. Let us know what we can do to help. If nothing, please rely on Mr. Anthony for our input. � _. : - -=-- _... ._,-:. � -- - - _ � ; ;_: ! _ _---- --- - — _ _, __ -- . i- I grant the authority stated in this letter to AP Mounds View Limited Partnership, Anthony Properiy Management, Inc. and its President and general partner, R. Jay Anthony. !i. -� / � � �GI-� l'�' � 1 C� DSteC�: UG. ! vfi� - � p� - . L_ �L — �ouise H. O'Neil cc: R. Jay Anthony, Anthony Properties Via Facsimile (972) 991-4494 I� _ � �,r' �, � - - - _ - - - -- - ; � rr d L � � R � � R � � �. c: s c: iz � n R` �1 r � n R A � �o A � � � x _ _ : ; ___ __ _ =1 - :___ _ _ _ _ _ t _ __ __ __ _ __ ___ _ _ - ----- .--- --=� = - -_ . __ �: RESOLUTTON N�. 5104 CITY OF M4UND5 VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF N1Il�NESOTA RESOLUTION ADOPTING A COMPRESENSTVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM DENSTTY RESIDENTIAL TO MI7�D USE PIID FOR COMNIERCIAL USES ON THE Q'NEII. PROPERTY, 2430 HIGHWAY 10; AND INCLUDING REVISIONS TO THE MAP AND TEXT FOR DISTRICT 1; PLANNIlVG CASE NO. 471-97. WI�REAS, Anthony Properties Management has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment which would change the designation on the O`Neil Properry from medium density residential (3-6 units per acre) to mixed use commercial; and, WHEREAS, the 0`Neil property is described as follows: Part lying southwesterfy of centeriine of STH No. 10 of southwest 1/4 of northwest 1/4 (subject to roads, highway and easements) in Section 08, Township 30, Range 23. .� WHEREAS, Section 401.09 of the Mounds Vew Municipal Code states that the City has adopted the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mounds Vew, dated 1979, as its plan for future development and growth within the City; and, WFiEREAS, the City Counc�l ofthe City ofMounds Vew adopted the 1979 Comprehensive PIan in 1982 by Resolution No. 1467; and, Wf�itEAS, the 1979 Comprehensive Plan places the ONeil Property in District 1 and designates this property,for medium density residential developmern; and, VVf�EAS, there have been four efforts to amend the Cit}�s Comprehensive Plan since 1979, and the H'ighway 10 Redevelopmern Study was prepared and considered by the City Council in 1995; and, : WHIItEAS, as part of these efforts, consideration has been given to various land uses for the O'Neil property, including: highway commercial, mixed use low and medium density residential, o�ce park� corporate headquarters o�ce, or townhomes; and, WF�REAS, the existing Comprehensive Plan desi�nation is 18 years old; and, WF�REAS, District 1 is referred to as City (V"iIlage) Center, and the description in the Comprehensive Plan for this district states that this area offers the community a valuable opportunity of creating a strong, vital, identifying community focal point. It also states that commercial and medium density residential development should be located in proximity to H'ighway 10, with a decrease in intensity of use occutring outward from the highway toward the lower density residential neighborhoods to the south and west; and, �� -- --- - :I i I �� : : � . __ _ � i � �- _ r- : _- . . .: 3 -.,-,- ,-�-> -� ----� F �.��-'. -:' --�.--- -- �r' - '� ' � Y`�' � -- Ciry Council Resolution No. 5104 May 12, 1997 Page 2 WHEREAS, both the Comprehensive Plan and the current zoning on this property indicate a need to provide bu�ering between land uses on the 0'Neil property and the adjacent single family residentiai neighborhood; and, WI�REAS, the current zoning envigons approximately seven acres in duplex residential use (R-2) in a strip along the southern edge of this property, and seventeen acres of commercial uses (B- 1) bordering Kigiia,ay 10; and, �REAS, M'innesota Sta.te Law gves precedence to zoning where there is a conflict between a zoning designation and a comprehensive plan designation; and, �'iEFtEAS, the ONeil property is one of the most si deve�opmern in the Ki ��t p�cels remaining availab�e for ghway 10 corridor and in Mounds Vew, and presents the possibility of adding to the City's tax base; and, W�3EREAS, the City Council makes the foliowing findings thax the proposed amendment is consistent with the general land use goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: Goal 1. DeveIop a cohesivc Iand use pattera w,hich ens.� �mPatibilit�, �d ��onal relationships among acdivities and uses. The change from medium density residential to nuxed use pUD, alIowing both commercial and residential uses, will ailow for IIexibility in the Ci accompanying description of the types of land uses to be al owed r qeuires nthat ommercial be included in the mixiure and duects development toward destination-oriented commercial, rather than local convenience commercial, This mixture will create a lively, vital activit�, cemer az the heart of the commurutS, and brings a new, beneficial element to the land use mix in Mounds Vew. The proposed ameadrnent places this commercial activity center on Kighway IQ which is the major tra,veI carridor throu�h Mounds Vew, and across the street from City Ha11 and the Mounds Vew Community Center, which will reinforce the City (Village) Center idea. The land use description requires adequate buffering between this property and the residential neighborhood to the south be provided by limiting the intensity of uses in the area 150 feet from County Road H2, and by requiring a 50 foot buffer of landscaping or tree cover if this area is used for commercial uses. Goa12. Maintain and, where necessary, up�ade land uses and environmental quality. The policy under this goal directs attention to protecting integrated use districts (residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, industriai parks) from penetration by through ira�ic, The revisions to the text for District 1 indicate that, if commercial uses are developed in the area within 150 feet of County Road H2, that access to County Road H2 be restricted to protect the neighborhood south of County Road H2 from through tra�c. The substantial _ ' --= �- -� -__— _ _ . .. � - - • -- -- �L--` ---_- - _- - r.- City Council Resolution No. 5104 May 12, 1997 Page 3 wetland on this property shall be preserved. The change from medium density residentia( to mixed use PUD allowing both commercial and residential uses creates more possibilities for reinforcing the idea of creating a vibrant City (V"�ilage) Center. Goa13. Preserve and protect property vaIues. The requirement that uses within 150 feet of County Road H2 be limited to lower intensity uses, thax a 50.foot bu�er be provide�i if commercial uses are developed in this area, and that the wetland be preserved will help preserve and protect the property values of surrounding residential neighborhoods. Goa14. Ensunc community development is compatible with features of the natural environmcat and is accommodated without destroying desirable eavironmental features and natiu�al ameaities. This comprehensive plan amendment includes a rec�uirement that the substantial wetland on the property be preserved from development, and that consideration shall be given to preserving the tree cover on this parcel outside of developmern areas wherever possible. �� Goa15. Prev�t development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities (utilitics, P�S� �S, ��-) The properry is located on H'ighway 10, the major thorough#'are in Mounds Vew, and is also bordered by Long Lake Road and County Road H2, both of which are collector streets. Adequaxe opportunities for access are available. Water, sewer, stonn sewer, gas and elecbric Iines are in place in the surrounding streets. Comments from the Mounds Vew Police Departrnent and the BlainelSpring Lake Park/Mounds Vew Fire Department regarding need for service would depend on specific land uses proposed and would be obtained at the time of development review. Paridng requiremerns also depend on the specific land uses proposed and would be checked during developmern revie�w. WI�REAS, the City Council hereby finds that the comprehensive plan amendment will remove an inconsistency betwesn the comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation on this property. NOW, TTIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds �ew City Council does hereby approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to designate the ONeiI property as Mixed Use PUD (Commercial and Residential Uses) with a requirement that development be limited to lower irnensity uses in the area within 150 feet of County Road H2 as noted in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Revisions to the text describing District 1 shall be made as shown in Exhibit 2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Uses suitable in the lower intensity area are o�ces, single family detached homes, patio homes or duplex residential units not exceeding 6 units to the acre, and parlting and landscaping. Development in this area shall be designed to provide a bu�er of at least 50 feet 'vn landscaping or tree coverage, and to restrict access �� -- --= _,� � � ----= - • _: - - - _ � ---- �- - -- - -- City Covncil Resolution No. 5104 May 12, 1997 Page 4 , :; _ _ _ �;..:,-_ __ --_r- . >. �-" -�, -. . . -.; �--� ��: -._ to County Road H2, if this area is used for commercial development to protect the single family residential neighborhood south of County Road H2. Development on the ONeil property shalI include commercial uses, and these uses shall be destination oriented, rather than local convenience commercial uses since an adequate supply of such commercial uses have been developed in Mounds Vew- The substantial wetland on this property shall be preserved from development, and consideration shall be given to preserving the tre� cover on this parcel outside of development areas wherever possible. Adopted this 12th day of May, 1997 1 / �/... �. � %7%� .� •� •• , ATTEST: � - � Charles S. Whiting _` .�� City Clerk-Administrator ' (S�) N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEV�DEVCASES1471-971CCRES.CPA R� _ I . �':: lr.a..r.rt`�` -�•� �F �c . � .;._ � . .. _ r,ck,- �- �, i, . - - ---- ` � - ' — _ � . . ' � . _ . -. . .. _. ' __ — � � City Council Resolution No. 5104 May 12, 1997 Page 5 _ � n: DISTRICT 1 PROPOSED LAND USE LD Low Density Resideritial MD Medium Density Residential MD/MHP Medium Density - Manufactured Hame Park HD High Der�sity Resider�tial NC Neighbofiood Cammercial HC Highway Cammeraai IND industrial MU-PUD Maed Use PUD (Planned Unit Deveiopment) MU-PUD (LI) - Mixed Use PUD (Lower Intensity) MU-PUD (HI) Muced Use PUD (Higher Irrtensity) S Sct�ool � Church P Parlc/public faafity NAiURA� FEATURES` � FloodplaiNDesigrtatedWe�and _ � Steep Slopes � Tree Massing . ' Appro�amate locations - subject to detailed review at time of proposed development. _ . _ _ ✓ F r 'z- ;j =- '- - --- --� °� " _ ___ - _ ,: _ � . _ . � _ `_ _-- � =i 'I �� City Council ResoIution No. 5104 May I2, 1997 Page 6 � n: � = : _ -_ -: - � � _ - District 1 is intended to become the V'illage Center, or focal point for the community. It is envisioned to be a strong, vital activity center in the heart of the community, where a compiimentaiy, coordinated mixture of uses will create a feeling of identity and enjoyment for residents and visitors. It will provide places to live, work, shop and enjoy leisure-time pursuits. The creation of the V'illage Center will build on existing uses which include the Mounds �ew City Hall a,1d Community Center, two community shopping centers, Mounds Vew Square and Silver View Plaz� the Silver Lake Pointe and Wildwood Manor senior apartmezrt developments, the single famiIy homes and townhomes in Silver Lake Woods, several large aparm�ent developments including Scotland Cneen, Woodlawn Terrace, Timberland Ridge, Greenfield Estates, Lancimark Estates, The Sands, and Mounds Vew Estates, individual re7ail busin�sses and restaurants along Fii�h�,ay 10, and neighborhood businesses like the Tom Thumb market. This district includes some significant natural resources and open space areas. Silver Vew Park, on of the City's largest parks, is within �,aalking distance from many areas of this district. It incIudes an attractive lake with wallcing paths, athletic fields, and picnic and playground facilities. There are three large wetlands, one located southeast of Silver Vew Road and I�'ighway 10, one south of H'ighway 10 between Long Lake Road and County Road H2, and one next to the Mounds Vew Community Cerrter. Two of these are State-protected, and all three are protected by local regulations. They will remain important assets in the environmental quality of this district, and an appropriate setting around each wetland needs to be preserved. The undeveloped land ia this district is often wooded with mature tre�s, and effort needs to be gven to preserving as much of the forested ciiaracter and natural feel of these areas as is possible by how development is designed on these parcels. H'ighway 10 presents a challenge to the cre�on of the V'�llage Center, in that it cuts diagonally across this district and the remainder ofthe community, and is used as a major route to move tra�c through the region. It carries a high volume of traffic during commute times, and the timing of the t�-a�c lights favors the highway rather than local t�-a�c and pedestrians seeldng to cross the highwa at the irnersectians. The V'�lage Center offers the possib�ity of creating a meeting ground between the two halves of the community, which will overcome the division created by the highway. It is the desire ofthe community that H'ighway 10 become a bouievard that is rooted in Mounds Vew, and makes the community visible rather ignoring or being oblivious to the community. Vehicular circuiation should be developed according to a ring road concept to keep major tra�c flow on the periphery of the �llage Center. Access to H'i g hway 10 should be Iimited and concentrated. Relative to genera! use patterns, commercial and medium density residential development should be located in proximity to H'ighway 10, with a decrea.se in intensity of use occurring outward from the highway toward the lower density residential neighborhoods to the south and west. Development should also include provisions for dedication of land to a pedestrian/bicycle traiI system which can tie the various elements of the Center together and provide connection to a community -wide system of trails. _ City Council Resolution No. 5104 May 12, 1997 Page 7 There are opportunities to enhance and further reinforce the opportunity.to create a�llage Center in Mounds View through how vacant land in this district is developed, and through incorporating design elements along H'ighway 10. There are two significant vacant areas which deserve mention. Both of them are on FLghway 10 and offer an opportunity to strengthen the City's economic base by taldng advantage of the strong desire in the business marketplace to located on a major thoroughfare. • The first is bordered by I-i'ighway 10, Long Lake Road and County Road H2. This parceI needs to be developed in a manner which maintains an open face to the I�'ighway 10, and creates a destination activity and meeting ground across from the Civic Center, so there is a concentration of activity on both sides of the highway. Possibilities include entertainment uses, restaurants, and unique shops. These uses could be combined with o�ces or higher density residential to create a"villa�e cerne�' feeling. This parcel also presents a challenge since it abuts a single famiiy residential neighborhood on the south side. Care must be eacercised in providing an adequate buffer between the active uses located on this parcel and this neighborhood, so the quaIity of life and peaceful enjoyment of their homes is not disiupted. How the development is orierned, the location of access points, and the circulation system to serve this parcel are critical to achieving this goal. ' > The district map shows two designations for this area. Both of them are for mixed use PUD ��" alIowing a combination of residential and commercial uses, with the area approximateiy 1 SO feet deep along County Road H2 restricted to lower intensity uses. Lower intensity uses would include single-family housing (up to three units per acre), and office uses. If the Iower intensity area is developed for non-residential uses, access to County Road HZ shall be restricted and a buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be created which siiall be in landscaping or native tree cover. • The second parcel is bounded by F�ighway 10, Silver Lake Road, the St. Paul Waterworks ROW and existing businesses. A land use study and market analysis for this area has been completed, and they included suggestions on the types of land uses which would be suitable for these parcels. These uses included senior citizen housing, offices, restaurants, and high impulse, convenience-type businesses. Attention needs to be given to how to create an irnegrated, coordinated development which related to surrounding uses, makes connections to the trail systems in Silver Vew Pazk and along Mounds �ew Drive, and uses the wetland as an asset. It is important to avoid development wIvch creates a row of independent highway-orierned businesses along I�ighway 10 oblivious of their surroundings. This parcel is at the point where the commercial deveiopment widens along Kiighway 10, as one enters the City from the north. It needs to be treated as a gateway area. To help ensure that future development is consistent with community goals, the remaining ndeveloped land should be develaped on a staged, planned unit basis. The current state of the illage Center is somewhat fragmerned. It is most important that this area become a more coordinated, cohesive focal point for the community throu,h the types of land uses developed, how developments are designed, and the implementation of design features which will establish an overall __ _; ,_ _ 8r � ,1 City Council Resolution No. 5104 May 12, 1997 Page 8 _ . . __ _ _ � - =.. :. __. , _ __ � _ -,. _-: : > =- =- . _. , _:.. _ character. The community's goal for this area is that it wiIl be a destination and significant place, which draws people and brings them enjoyment. Land uses need to be coordinated and interconnected, tied together by a landscapin� and design theme along Highway 10 and system of walkways and trails. The types of land uses must create activity that is an asset to those living and worldng in the community, to visitors, and to the residents in the immediate neighborhoods within this District 1. N:�DATAIGROUPSICOMDEV1DgVCASES1471-9TCCRES.CPA � � __ -_- T - - -- = -- �t=_ -- �— _ �_ — RESOLUT70N NO. 5119 CITY OF MOiTNDS V�W COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF NIINNESOTA i A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE O'NEIL PROPERTY, 2430 ffiGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 471-97. WF-TEREAS, Anthony Properties Management, Inc. and Louise O'Neil have appiied for approval of a general concept plan for the development of a] 6-screen movie theater, three 11,000 square foot office buildings, and two restaurant sites on property bounded by H'ighway 10, Long Lake Road, and County Road H2, and described as follows: Part lying southwesterly of centerli�e of STH No. 10 of southwest 1/4 of northwest 1/4 (subject to roads, highway and easements) in Section 08, Township 30, Range 23. WHEREAS, the applicants have submitted a general concept plan prepared by HLM � Architects and dated 2/7/97 which shows the generallocation of uses and buildings, walkways, .� parking areas, access points, access drives, buffer azeas, and open space areas to be left � undeveloped; and, WHEREAS, the PUD stipulations attached to the general concept plan specify the maximum densities, minimum setbacks and maximum building heights to be allowed, and special criteria applicable to the development to this PUD; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning AppIication 2. Zoning Map 3. PUD Concept Plan, dated 2/7/97 4. Traffc Study prepared by SRF Consulting;�dated 4/17/97 5. Trafi'ic Study (for Restawant Sites) prepared by SRF Consulting, dated 5/2/97 6. Preliminary Drainage Calculations 7. Available Utility Connections for Water, Sewer and Storm Sewer 8. Market Summary 9. Summaries of Neighborhood Meetings (12/12/96, 1/ 15/97) V�I�REAS, the Mounds View City Council has received a recommendation of approval from the Mounds View Plannin� Commission as stated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 503-97; and, _ i_ _; �= - .� - -- - — --- . . _ . _ _ - _— - --_ 1 Cit�� Council Resolution No. 5119 Ma�� 12, 1997 Page 2 _ _ I _ __ � k� ,_ , _ - - - -- - -�-- _ _ : -. __, : __ _— . --<_ ,- �_;---- °. = - � � . __. —_= WHEREAS, the proposed general concept plan is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the Mounds View PUD Zoning District; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds �ew City Council does hereby approve the general concept plan for the O'Neil Property prepared by HLM Architects and dated 2/7/97, subject to the stipulations contained in Exhibit 1, to the requirement that approval be obtained for a development stage plan and final plan as provided in Section 1120.04 Subd. 3 and Subd. 4 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, and to the requirement that the following changes be made to the drawing of the general concept plan: 1. Parcels A and B shall be marked as restaurant sites. 2. The northernmost and southernmost driveways on H'ighway 10 shall be removed. 3. The driveway on Highway 10 at the center of the site shall be marked "right-in, right-out" with a notation that a full movement intersection sha11 be allowed if approved by MnDOT. 4. The reference to the pedestrian bridge shall be removed. ADOPTED this 12th day of May, 1997. ATTEST: (S�AL) 1�':1DATA\GROUPSICOMDEVIDE VCASES1471-9'7�CCRES.GCP �--iY�� Duane McCarty, Mayor , � . Charles S. Whiting, Ci Clerk-Administrator ! __ __ ;; . __ H W �„ a E., O �� wW e W � Q r /�ti [� �-. Mrl i-' r� � W zo � W � � � 0 � a C d � O a� > D C � -a m c c m lII .` d E O pf C ._ O N ri d � � � O Q cV Co O. � � A V 5 ~ '� d � � � � � � � �1 p t0 �1 U � .p � � '��'j ��rp� =.j �� •.- ��, r., y '� o � " m a� a� � � m�°`a�� .� .�. 3 ai 'O � v� �1 w � n�i m ° � ,� � .� N Q 4 �� p�, p� � � � y h � � � � ._ � N -0�� Vrf'..`6 .�' c0 '� t0 � Q. y y p� i p� � � � G� � O � y_ N O �N... �: � b� G1 � y � � .o � p tq =� O� w v� � M a � � � y � � m � � N M y � G X X `` � m� h� 4� � S y E E aa � ��'� °� � °' w = � i ° � � 4 a�ico��.�aN�a � � �J � � �V � �y y Q m � +-� � y � � = j � � L � � � h m V � � � � �'Q i �'� X h O d = a � � � p �D � �j �o °'�oy4m�E°'.c h m � � � � � y � � � � �°' L'��$y$ �a � U .... .w � v� � a N � � � � � � vy +�' � � � L C� _.�0 � pl Z Z �� N � C N �Q j U � > � � � p � =�-L � � � ��z �� a� L �Od�� : �.��..`o � L �:a� N(A N fA t/1 N N N .� � d d � � � � 4 � � � � � � V U U U U U U U� N lII �Q f0 �0 c9 N OCOMtp�(DGO� etc'�ONhu)�� ►��N�OD N = U � � � � � Q � d � (/� ~ a? .Q+ ��NMQm Cfn d d m � N �6 _ N ��c�cv��°. �� •e ►'�-OOOaa�H C � 0 � U .. �� L r. r � w � C � � 0 � � N r � . Q: � Z c 2 � H � � 3 o s rn ds c 'c v; a� �a c � � O V C7 p � N � U � t � � O � � � a.� °�� ... �V t�M � N N L rn °' c °1 �'oF�- "'A � C .=d o0 �o�n o.�•o� � �--� O� n � .-. � � N oz� zz� �o� �sz C7 O � �(7� � � � �p0 E^ }` ��U � � Q w � z > 0 0 � � � L7] � t-- � 0 W � a a ¢ H � � a. O � W � A F-+ � Wo � Q ,��j�w a�0 � � •-.� W W O � O N a. F-� � y„ a H � �� .... W W W �A -� a, F• W � zQ oW � � a � = c �� '� ,�a,�o, -� � h .� "' C Uz�» € �y ?�C j�Q '� � � Z7 � � o��.�� aNi � � � � � � � O = � t�0 � O y � � � 4> t-� �� ,� � �f==°io, .� ' �;� ','_D`� �a a� �.i £ y � j y �hm�'°= � � � � � � � ��;� y� ��o=� a� ��;� i 'ti�b j �.Qy' � � � k � � _ � .0 ;e m h :c° �a,� �zm�o� ��a� _ �' _'� m .� o� � � .� � 3 o.=� � � �•� ��o�o�� .. �C v� � �C S� C� 0 � co M f/1 fq N tA � d W d U U U U cv ao m cu �cDOf— h � ti � � t- O OC � � ) M i N i_ ; � � � . C .� N �� U �p � t,= �. a�Of°- vi � r. vd, � M c � a� a � d U � �5 a N � N N � � O � �D Z Q LL � �� C 4�1 tt� `1 y O O O �.N° E � � � � `aaa� y d � d > +.. U U U � C cII Rs t0 t �aaa� y N N L � � �- r- 3 j Q � � C � m � � U � a�o� � 0 � c0 � a��i a`�'i Qf W N oo� � � r m � � U Q v j � .p C �p �" — � � t � a�01-° N C a, � � Q � W G O .N � � Ki �i .�. fi � � � � p Ci Ci'C o m y� � �.o °moG�b°y '� C h � � � ,`� �;c°�� y F =:C�� h �� O � + � � � tt � '� � � `0 �Q> y � p � � � •l� O y , � h = O �j � �� O;C � a� v,Ub .p N �j � �C � � _��,�.:� �.�m�mmm � j� 4� y� � � CA y �� W O O•� �� m � = o,� o�.c� �o��j'�'� � � �D � O y C h o'�� E = c�° � � � � m � � � �� y �`� �3 � y o�,c`� m v; a�o$ �U � ��.��°i3 `r�o a� o� � � E .0 � C '� "� � a� a� a�i � w � � � '� � � ~ y � k o, � o, ,� O�.0 �� Z � � � � � � � ` � �p � � .� v� O � f p o� p�� N � � h h = � � � hcm�3��'� �� y �_O � y � � � � � CL � � U �" � � y y O p� � �� - Wm � ��'` ��m��=� ��a�►�o � e.= o�:c � �. y�� y a�� m � O � b�� ,� y C> p� ` � �'� � � � y ,caL��.��m j��m�'�°,a h Q •= d h 0 � � � � � � � � �� ,�p +� `o�"�� m � �'° $ o�� '�'��`��c�o°'$ � � � h � �� O •� �,� � m� �� o �� y � y Q? � •Q � a� � �� ...G��N y �� h � G C C �'- .E.�v� °'a'�'� O O O O h � � � �0 Q fi � � a� � q3 2 w :� c, ¢ y .o o c � pi o � � '�' � •- .� c�oma�-i'c j �� J om� � a, C m r C C) +. J � Q� 0 C � .., .r=UJ111 � � J� V � C �0 °" ` � �0 c, 'c c a�°a�i:a a?� �� 0 .� �� U � _ o, b 'p �� W m � y W � � � o � y W � � � � � � `. � O �� ,�� ,� � ..: � � � � � � � y O ,h �Q� G� � ,� �a Q �� 0 � � � � C m e � � Cp U � � � j O Pv �U � 'Q o � � � h � � � � � � � x � W � N �� a� � •� �Q � � � j i h 'Q O � o� h � � � � h y �� W y � � � '� � � U � � � � a� � � ,� � .°ia h � �� h H y �,00� �y a�,� $' � fi O � � a� .W o, o ��` � � � � ... i j � O � �•€ �� o `� h � 7 � � E E E .� .� .� E E E n� a� a� � i °r-' °r-' °' .�?ttNM r .� � � Z C � ` � C � � � ai ►L- O � l� O, t� � � o� � ^ O� � V1 •--� � � � � � wy z� w Q �z � o O � � � � � � WR�� ; � U � W W � � A � � � W w F- � � .� L4 w d F� W a 0 w > w A � � o � Q ¢3� 4 � 0 ,� � N w o w V O N a i � W � � � Ha' '� wW Mf � ;�y �1 ''CL F"� a�fil zA ow � «.a a, c � N C O U ■ � w d � 0 a _ � N c 0 U '� c � d .' � t0 O c N C � .O U a � U CCi > N U � � i � � d EO o �n" c� o� "�v,s��o 3 va.$ �� (6 � � N � � tQ Lu,��c>c� c°cv�°•°-'S 0 � � a w Q 2a��o� �_ v, co ta Ns �i N `r o� n.�.a:a u, v�cc'o�-m .�•-�>o— vo��`�va o ��ca0 Nf0,�t�—= � O N N N t d � Q �' ` � � N G a' E W � •Cj � U � V T+:. � C ��o�oL u��a�.�EVNm �� c ��'� > -��V�o c`c��3 °'aia°'. r � c�+oo�°�''"�'.e '�O � U "" C t�i� � _ v�22rnc�c�oca �� N C d V C N "� p O � � � N �3U�.nv,a� N � � �. s ti O � � ,a, � � N N � � a� E � o c � ��°�> � °'� = ci0 ,� � c ,Z, �sX O a v U 7 �� c� E� ca�o�o� a� C. -`' � U ►� o.Q�`.�¢30 o °- g °' Z �'G�.m=� y ��p �.n cU ca=��°a� a��'gc a -Q � 'O Q. N C Uc'�v�,t�c�u c��aca o �—_ c•- � U n.°-� ca a� a� y Q L Q �_ 'D � � V C L 0 � C o � � "-o c � � � � � � � o��--a� t4 �- C C � '� � Q � p � � � ■ Q �U� cII� L N w �°� rn �. c = � � � � a `� N � � tfl � 0 a~= � U1 � N � Q C d C p� �N L `c °-� � a� -- ° =,,� �'€W� `o�o'� o a �, v+ 7'� � �1 0 �Q O m � N N � � m = 0) O j� .v c 'v o � .—°- o � m,�com �' � Z c N N N � � N d � � d�,�� ,E,� a � U J � o��, t�ZdUa � � a� o a� > _: O � � � N � � � .� � C � � � N C � � > � .� � � � � � d c�a�, � � �; a c��a''a._Nc !4 O N N�;d N N N O � � ; � U Q � C � _ � �. ... �, � •c � lC C� d�� !4 a O � c0 E��a-`o �'awm�'�'��°o�c � a•- Z o� c rn�C � �v � m � � N � � � � � � a�,� � � � -a_ 3 `ml- �-a� > �� a� co > v, ot o m` a3r-. �► � d'�C C� y� w�� N °'� 3� E �� c°� o d� � � .«. d L d _ >•N C�� C vi m C C��U p y l0 C��... �.� Q> C C��mm.c�crns�mo � coomamc�,'3aU HGr m � 1A !!� N p Q� �� E�°� o'�c c c�.�` w ur � o a�.�— °1 v,'a U p.o°�, orna�coc�Ny ...�,Z' c� t oaoai�>�-�M-W�`��, o a o= c— odx�Wv�ac��.�0c-a � d�� C W'G) � C'fl N C� f�al�� .�p � Q� O G N� �� t4 t�iJ U C N C�. a � � r QI > d 4I !II lU > �0 00 � 3 �a�v�i c°� o aaE c°a N .r � �, � � � � N � � � � a; A � � � •� N � �� U W� mc��o�c °`o �w�°W��d ��, o�°LV, rno� o .� :� .. � Oc��a�o ao�NaW�u,� C� a� Q� � V C lII m � �v�a�c�cW°v, � o � � v,•coa; �iv � 0..., � C �p` O d �QCi � a� � � �. E -• rn� EL a� `—°� E Sca"o°'000, c`co°3a�� c �0 '� � > � � 'o, c � �v n. .n � � � -o � -� 3 'S a►� a�i co'or rnarn� cc � > ` c ui !A p"- o U F- .� T 2 O m� m �c'_ »- � � '°'v L o m E�en°�O�'"a�ia> _U c — a��a=_m�cc� o�+�a.��oa3�.� >m°�o.a.-°_-'�o� p� c°�i � V� N�o�p- c"ro � Q � p � � � (� m C L �—(U 3•�� c� a O R1 cC m a� '-' C V O ■ d U Ip .'L. � 'D � 'D w � �I L C �• d �0� � � ` � �� fn Q �'� �� cv U N O � - c °� v,se`�V N�N� U � � �- CV :?o�c.., cu.ctIIi3c`"a �V�� .y=�ao �-'�o � h °' ,o ° a a� o'a�r�; N�.°"�� N � •°-' ni '3 � � N � � '0 'D W � ��.�.. � .3 = � C � � �:,'�� d�°�oa N o � ` �°a�� N � � � o. v� O .n � � y � � C a � � � O � d :.+ �4 N H��' a� tc'= � ��_ ��r o —��,� � C� O :� � N U Q- uJ >.rn�o o,� �`�—�°� = C cC p O� �• O>€ ��' w Or C >€ n' fq �� •- w m °s `".v cw o a� �� a v;�c��ca�Q,�=��o €°3'�aOC�s��Z� a�c�o��'�E�e� � O p N� C�-p N'� � �.O c �,r��U��cUa� � a. c�a a� 2 c ov� c v,°'�j� m v_, � O� C U> 01 E sD N d O O.O oa��o�a•�oL��'� rnm a.�—°� a... -a 'U C�� Q C d 4? �.3 p� t U :� p � � �•�-a �� C Q� � �:°aco>,�v°',33°'�0 carnm�0V�0`os��,��° .� � c � � E ,� . a � .0 L .o 0 c>'� � a�n a�,��a °' �no a �� V.V C� V� O C M L �'u`,00a•c. -vcc��,oc� e� ,�c��o.� � �a�a� gm�cm�co�v, a N� o 0 3� �� c� 0'3 c `°�°�:-.°'oo3v�� lL U� N N U U�� G� " ,.. a� E � ` �•� � 2 2 = �v ° � � ��.E � G C� 7 O O d.N ■� U O�� U U G- �� d� � �o�� o� --� o. ,_, -� o� t� vl •--� d' � N °zz�" WO� a�"z � vo° ��U �Z � � O '-' a. „_, U E,,,� �' .� F� w m —� ... � U � 3 �W> � � � w x F� � � .7 .� a a d F w a O w w A E- � A o �� ¢ w a�0 ,� � c� w W O � O N CL F� � � y„ G" F, O �r W _.,�> �G =-`a F ��w zQ � W � ..a C�. � � 1 .� � c .a m tC � O� C � .� .Q � � ` � G � d O C � „�, � � � � � � C O � � � � C � � � � '� N p� LL ��' � a �, N N .� � ca � c.'_ � 0 3 m s>, cv r� N U �. v, s rn �. •�'NV��,w�°�'so-aaic=�occ�a�a� 3 �cdo�~Etd - ��Q C � � � p . � � � .r � O W O � t/1 p,n'�c�"'' �•�"' ��, m �or� o,�, u� �r�� a�i NN o,o E�E �•°'aC= � a� v, m�- E� c � _- �•- �= cv�'rn E � � ` ° N � o a� m� o... � � � � ��v c� o m�.�:� �--� �... ° o ao ° c, � C p) `p_ "- � p� �� v1 � vi C C�_�p t C p� ,w, � C (A � � �II � � � ._. �. t0 `� C .0 ' U O��6 a� � C l0 N� U lQ � a1 C"D .0 C c Q� v�, �� o� c� °' � a� �' v, E a� >. a o� v� co -v a� o c`u ,� d�� a� �>. w. a� c� c � — C O !II � •y C 1/) � � 0 � O � � '� Vl � U � > � � � m �.� �.� O a'C �p p- C m m 41 ��-p > C W C oo�....� '�3v,�'v�°'�=op�°'da�°i �,`��'-° � mO °'rn�Q=,v NrU a�� 3 .O t � C � � � � � � � C ��, d E d� U.0 = aa� 3 3°°' a�i a,w � W 3 c,� ��=� � c ._ �c� c`Q.•°_' v�'C""� aa�i m�-° �"o= ``� a�i ='n.=L y= ac C o�s a� ca� �.'�s �� l0 U� O O�_ .. _ G�.. = m • C� tLq �p w 0`d cC d� p. �' L.0 �� p,� � •a'C fA � 0 � d .0 � � � V � fA f"' •N E �.- f/l '_ W C cG > +� �� O �� m� aj °> �� T� U ��a�i�aia�i �'�Or�a��Ea�=•°-W� ��ius°' E c��a c co c�''_ W Es�� c� E _.I :� � ~ � � � � r W tNi� � � c�0 C U p) N .0 ,C � w. rn 2 c p'� m cCO �� tvv `_ _ � � �€°' 'u, v, '� �' a: 3 �Q c.a�°�v v,� cu o c° a.s.�,v°' 00� E E d� Z � � o v� .>' � C e �, �� U � = X � �, a°' L Q ""' � � �� D a � � � o ri � v � i',o� � � � � j V O � N r- : N c � � � 's_ .n '3 s L � c v/ t'`O ' N d i � � � � U a� � C ,� Vi � C 'C O � d � � � � •• � � E a� � .� -�m E>,=o .� � � C� C L = �II v�a�--�mWv,°'a �� C'V a p � O d o.° a 2y � o�� > ov� c c � > �a � 'G � :� V Q� � 'C7 � ,�'' � �.� C y � > �.0 V p�V O� O V �v�c��c`voW ��c�wo�°'e �, � .� � 0 �a � C O � > V � � � � � U �2�a-°= � o y v,�.�`�' o�� cya »..O C � � � N Q� �n-�ujFL-�Na�v� ooN� �o�m� c,cv °'. �U ac•c� O y v1 U � � � •� � v�l OtL•C N O C N v► O O�~ C�� C Q O tC ��•� p O c�€E�a � r0 .O .L.�. V� O � 'p � Y v��o��aa �,N �- o v a.��,o�. ondN�m��r.c V� IQ N�0 y•- t/► V� _ � t �� C L� E •C a.0 w 7= � Q in .a O�,� � v, m� u, c �'3��v�o`�'�°,a�i C N N � co °ov,°c�. N •- c, a� m c c� p ..: C V � _ � g ,ri ... v, 2 0, �, p- �.°°�.°'c .a V C p_ y � O O � � V Z � U lII O �lII � � � Y y � W N � �•-� o oU � �ul—�„ N 4I U a a U � N � d � � p .0 N � a � ` °� '� m'� � ��-v Z��°� c c ca c ��N ms�33� �cZ�,�o � °`o�� ai G C � C � � .Mcoa�'o�m d � E �? C � 'S3r=€� . m a�.�Z �1�-Dav°'o � O L � � .� a >. c� 3� � ' L Z C N �' � E.°'c' �o��' o, m�oc� � - V � 1 G. �Q C `c�� i 'U � W t� i � O .�� C�1 a� V! (� '0 � � lII 3'�,:�: � � � N �� p � y V a' S a 3 �C � ~ � � •3 p) tn 1 c�t:a' a ,�° �� a 0 3�cmz ��a � a p N L ��a�v, �� C � o�� aCi V V � _ � 2 � � O � � N ` 0 d O V n Ua,ao� � -- � � L N � O d �� C p�� U z c� � C Z�N c 0 o�L � � �n .n2 o,a? lII p v1 IO "" "' � a �y Op v� �� G� Z Z C N'C �� C� N C`" C H G � _ � C N ;� 'C d � ~ � j � L � U a"�' p� € � � F aOi N c � ° � � 'm � lG � � � l0 � � � � O � N �� L p O� � W yN aQ� V tQ.L.. ... _ ._ � w Q�` �� C C� � p c C N� C O O . �u o �- � � � � °' � `� � � a -v € cu 'II c r � � C � � d � � � a � O C vj •- � � 'Q :«. y(� �•alII._-p w,�b Z n'� ��.0 O � y C y a t� l0 � � p G N C � o�v�, � W co� � 1° �� v��,.�II o,c cdi °�> cj` c� W°� am � �> a� c � am m � �° �� cv« � N � �-o °w' � O� a ao °�, ��.a N.a Q�'x ° ° a � ° ° ' c ° ' 3 3 € . � 3 = c° 'i = c° ' i a v = N v� co �p � •C '_ � d � � � � V C �C � � 'G � � � � � C � c0 y p � d � Lt�fl�'r' �Q �O�i7�p C W C U�� lII � «. � C p c�II •� �0 � � U y V � � � C U� L C C lQ � � � p .pC L � ,� N � � � j '� p) � d � C � � � a y m o`-° �� `° �Q� ° o�'� � m a yd��r�'a��o�o rj ._ �. L� C� 3'- �> N O�� Q �� G) ""' o� y� � p v1 O rn U tn � v� .n m'�� €� -o Q�, �� 3�,— � pt �' � a�i c a> ��s a�°i m aiQ��.ra�`�co�': ac�v,a� � � �Q � �' � � � U .Q � W p .c m a�i " C y . lII �� c E .E L � U � N N� � � C C =_a 'cu -� � � � C � .f� O � O � � � > � � N C � N W � a� r � 3 � E� W a O � w > w Q � A o W � �' a�0 ,� � tt w w O � ONa l: - F-� tr� � �" O � � w W s W « Q �.:a, F-� � �W zp OW � J c�. N C O � � rn a� � N '0 N � s 3 a� U C E c°� c � C � � y � c � a� � � 3 a o � m a�i � � � m rn � � � € � � d o � a E °' � U � tII tC a o o� d U -p � C C d � � N rn O t 'fl — « •- L � 'n N � � °' U � O d O � t y � O � �. � 7 o� N � € o a� ` � �- o � o � A � � � w W n- � a� � C � n � � °'�,a� � 3 °� a� o, � C C N � � Q� N p� � � 0 Qi Q7 � �- .._.+ L c �+ smet3.�=tCII E -- c c�t o — � ,� O p N� � Q1 N� d = � � � N C Zt � L pXj d� y.� p�j v� — �� O d� L C O "'N=�-�-°-a�c�'ia � 'D w � C V -! � C ��•�,��e. ta� � IQ L � N L � � � a�� o� � d � � c c�"_��oNo L L U�� U�� N Q� �•C v� t� C L d'Q �� d C �_ ` � C oE"��a�c�° 'C C OtL N � �... O � � � � � 3 O ��.t:.�' � `' �..c�ci n�� ,a n� C lC o- �� C �O Q1 �II Q O�� ta C ��cdCd��cc �d �•N� m�� p a� �a •- O p� '� �p " � o ��--t c �o». s� ,�rnF"covT�► � � � c �a��cu�v..:c��c J� C C U�.� � U 7 r� G. � N L t �6 d W ��cv, c� G m c �oaa�� . � .. � � N � Z U =' N � Z•a,��'�E c� �= �'�`- EZ�o�u� -o�� a 3� o� 3 0 w ��— N� r°_o°'°n.°a•°'°' °�'��'EJ j U O a � � � O '� � a C � � N aJ N V N•� C � C � t °a -°'o s W .� Q a�i � ,�„ y � +r C� C O d C IA "' �G O .� .'� N C O? a �. ��,�oomc`o a�Ec�3�v �o2a�v' L.Qip�N U E � ryQ3��,o � � a L � � d O d N � N � _ e�Q > S C C� L�. � � 1- �,rn� o ° •� G' � � N +�' C C 0 t0 p� � � � '- N a�'�,�L= � � �� w 3 C N N .` �' a = = � w ` � d t�i� L a � t > � '� 'fl 'C � Q U N m y d � •- � p w a .� a -- C � 3 � � a�i Q N � .� — 'C �0 �r�o V � � N d �� o�� J O �, a> �� 0 c m � a �o=,� a a�•� r � � N ... � .a 7 ,L at � N �tw N � y O '"" �..� -�c `'° �.�� ` o 0 N � L �C � C. � C (q � n° N C V� l0 >� ` � � QN�+� � o��LEv��c y... Q� C U O C� O N C d V� V ocv�cos.a�F� �_': C v,�!n o 3t � � � tG � ,C C � � O L m'C tn td � N 3�� 0 3 sc°E'��'v,a? N� N� t� � C N i —��aC� ra3��w,�� v,—° a�•� a,av � c � t L � � �4 _, C � � � � � X a tQ � .0 ��'NO°�'3�'� m�av�,m o�c�'2 � N� p�'� U C v7j ... a�� N � � o N ��cdo�c�-�� aN="EL0'>. = o �� L dU=� ��r��E-u; I��vmmNN�°aowa � U d � d U� t �� O C� �� 7 r F- � a C1 N... ��'C m c � � o c��,.v°a'a� L C � � � N .a +.+ � � !0 � tC = fA tQ � Q Z� L � m-°�rnm�°'v� � Qiyc��'��o%o � > d ... �. t0 p� 0�� O t €.0 41 uj a�a�crnNa��o� �a c.- n� ��°� v ca .c 0> ; :Q � !� � D1 m 7 � �� 0. N T'fl f- N.a ��v o— oaQ�c�'� ma� � � N lL � C7� .L.. V N Q1 � m �v� � W�` C O �.� O t m�� d•� C d� L d d d� Qj �'� � Q' � U V-Y '� C m�� 'p 0 C .0 J w •N ,G • ,...y d a� vJ p�'� �' � p tC0 V cII N!n C� V O Z a? m . = O � y � lQ p�.0 L�'p p� C� ��° c a �,o N � �� c c� � ��N��.o'a,��° o3�`coo�c�L� 41 d C� a�.� tC N� ._ y .� = a= � W � � a�� e� �s~'� _ � a a 'o �v a� ... �. 'ao€ c�. c�� in � p v' � c0 �N > > � 'D � O N C d'Q �� j N C �'� '� C�� Q U IL- o �v �' c..�!� � o � N a O a m � � N n rn C � N O1 ` 0 C �� =v °/ C �� C � �� C 'n � o � � o ° a� a� U� C .- � N tNi-1 a. t � .� N O '` `0 3•c a o N � v sA C z �0 � � � � � U C .0 n, y .0 � � d .� 'C w = cc_co E � �' c � .. w � � � a��ac 0 d y d > � °'o E �r O � � G� G N�N�o d � •� G o�t ° a� �/1L �� c bi � � .� .o �� C � � � > ��CO� c c •> r .Q �o�4a�v�, 0 W � G>L O � m c ... � � n a c 'v r O t0 O � tn avv,� o N C C O � �- � U G. � � � � c o � � � ul VJ Z �3 � w- C -� U C � m � � � � w �' O a� Q �c E � �U? ani � o ,Y��O•- U a�i'II��N € � C 7 O � N � N� C a C Q V d d C C� f/i � � � � d N � � � v°� m.� av�r ��,o...��. � ` � � E w �p � O p�j � O .,, � d w 'D � `�- �� C � G � (Lj � � v! � a?v�,�c--oo� ��=rt°.'rm�° o y ` v, � � v, � � y C U � � > 'C N a: � � .� 0 c6 .0 •C O N C a � C � � � 3 m�W co�cq c� ■ ■ ■ ZH W � }, �' f--� � t� W W , � w �� A � �W zA O� � t�. � d p � C F' O C p C:� 'Q tQ �1 :� � vf Z1 [CO � ��v � �� n ' � ,� •� 3 ` ��.c�u?o� V t O C� W� �,�--dEa�� Na��n� O »r d � p N �T� V=L C W = � � ��a3_. �` m CL.1 � O N .� .� O � � U p) O �y W � 2�'Q � � .... �. N C .cov�cccon; LY p1 (Oj U+�= � o� ��`o o N;a m � _ N � 7 � C�.1� �.rt C� �:� � h �'"�.�'c C -C = � Q��`•' p -7 w �'�'arnc o �,� o '� C tA C•� � C� Y m:pY��p... � C� � `-•-��,�N��.n � m � A � � � w d « L � ` � � �= Q�.... d� � lII Q ,C d � � t � y � ` tG � � V � � � 0 � . � �: 'C C � � � �L��W � � -_ �v7 � � �� N t�il U ■ F- � �Q � .Q � 7 �0 � c V o n' � O ''.v ° � � m � � C o� � � a U �� C C � � .N N � � ca ta t � .0 v � r rn� 3�= � a N � O d �'EE /O�a�i N � C �+ W C � L �"-� c ° � U � C � �cc`o� � � � V •� � O � � N Q � � o � � � � W p N 7 d V �. v1 C ,i � U � �. � 2.��-ooN o.o U 3Z m .0 Z'��co p p � •3 0 �/1 Q, y > E � C .0 � .��t�m •��mCN � C) L s �WS� � rnc yF-w. o :� �a � o v, •- �- -� v� c m O � d C �.0 �...--._... d ` � � N C � m�'�� o N L N � � m � C W r � L � : U "' � � �L W O V . � m�o�r � �0 °'a �� 3 c y �� O U � � � C = w � � � � N L � N � � � r F- U � �G � '� N rn c c�'o 'c � c°'o � �a��o...— W � O � o s o��a3c� o;�� N �'n E�—�am m 3L� �t 'o C N��~ vi �0°3°'�d'E ..� 'C � � �- C ._ O C C C 'C •- +� �p vi C� N � — � N Y tC lfl C � L � � d... -�¢�N�d� aO°�IIO��c o � a� .n — �°'`-�`ao>� �o�cc�oE V O �� C > .Q .a L � N .� U m � °io,ao �: N �C C � C C � � E�� t0�' � O _ �E�oaiy� a�Z'grnv,d� o >n-•c�'o w L �O� � �•C � 'C � d � U d s � �� ° -'C -o E a� :° � a�-ao`��.c L C 'C O ` t � F-c�a.wo3E m � � L � � d W 0 � C W a� m� a ac m a� � r a "'� O O d m � � � � � � O L v; o �Q � � � c� a � W � t`D -p o � h � 3 a, C �N � � ° � m o° � � O + � � 0 U N �;-C w � � C N O Nc�a�o ccv�_. V O C�.1 � > cQC�a '�i N �j � W t � E � W N ~ � C � - 7 w C� C Q1 V .��a?�c � �. � (p ,Q � ��H Ql y � � O L � � d t � Na""�► .cm�mo`° L.0 y � � Q� a � -- v� C ,� N N = N � � — � � N d N O � C m Q)'C � ry��p Q� lII N`� C �� E y � c .a �� W �� c > N � c d � c � � � s p� O � � � W ` �� C N � " ul � :G � � � lQ C L N � = C � � `"" � � C U � c C d � C � = 0 1 � � ` � ` - ,` Qf=•� n i`L1 �C � I�6 N C «�. y ' �n,3o,c�o°'o`�.c .� � � � •3 'a o •� C � o C � � v,?�v�, N,o � c .c�N�_EW�� E�� X V �—t� C C �o�om�ac3� v�at0u��>,c O � ~ � � N d U .., o C �`_ � y U � C co��vc>1IIa'o =-3coc�mdn �a.co�`'��v, !6 � _ >, � C � � U � C � � � O �" � l0 c)�O°E�` �'E U�Uw `�"�L w� C C� a� � ��a�a>° ��° =a� �QQEQc O � d O dt�—�� y d U� W� C�C a d � W � � O � � V d� � C� N n tQ p�•-Q•� a Q � .:. �.E � 0 W — N,� C— C w C� � F- 'C J p.� � pq,C m � � C � � � � 0 .N � « _ � .� U � N � 3n,� �NC,�m�.cca�' c :c 'v► o � � F' 'E s � p d d �' _ 'N m O� G� p� � O.0 C Vi V d�•C V � O .N � � W �� ' �'� O .cu►1°r°'NUOrn N��3o' �s�a _ a� O U �.c�, C �u, o a=i °•-°'Q� � d a� �•� c c�i a>�� a > � �t C p C ... 0'0 C i/� �� a.�.� U > � � � N a v, -- c ,v 'C � d 'Q i � 'L7 N l0 .o��;�` c ca N a� W.� d� �� C N'C a d :�' � � � � o � �II � v, ao °'rnN � � .�wa�caca��-a� 0►rn �' '� cII �'v�i c� o� �p �° c a� �� o �V N �' � O� O � �� m ��>.0 tnarno�3��'� °'000°��,c�oo°'� �� a�QW c�6�� a� O N C O •� .� �' 3 � c .°� � ` t`Q C � �° c.� o- N p� L � � y �� c c � W v, a . �O�a .' � Q n� � a � O � L � L v � '� f�n � .� � � � tA .L,.. .0 U � m � ��0�� V E .� � w C .� C ._ � v�i;° � Q O � � � U = � rQ�a� �_�`�-� � o� e� o� .� o, h � �: w.y � � N oz-' � .- ;J.� � Q ' �G ..� C7p� z� � U ¢�O J�U L1, ^' W R1 � ; � U Q►�W � � � � � W x � m Q . � Ck L1. Q F� � O W > A H � A o w �, � < Q ~ a'�.�0 �� wow v O N a { _ � �., r� � ... � p,� a w 0 F-� � �, O .� W W A F� «.w � W � � A� H � c d Q� � � W � c � a r N N C n� �� •� � Q� 'C t � r d N� � � N �� C 'Q d! a �° C � O � � d � ra w � O Y �O C J � .� � a� 'c v �n -Q u� c y c� � t 'co � m 3 a� d t � o °a � � — C L � V C � � 0 � �6 p G" C C 'G C a •N U �Q � N � N•� �.� � co Cr� lII U.G � � � a N �°v�,�o�o ' �o�•-c— c3'�C�co�'� �v �=a� N�QIp O;� �°O '0 � ad ��°D C C �oa� �c�� •Qd.>��w �w N d � (/! � C � 7 � � "' � O o d > � O N V O � d O= d.� �� C d � C v1 a �— � �� ,v 'aN��»ra�o:�� L � �� c �'~ c�� a� w3��o0� ��oo•-��, �.. t0 �o �, N 3-o -- � o a > �C > ?� � U °a a� �oa�a�� Q O � O •n` �� ' �� a� �� o � � � � d cII C �''� .... t O a�.E="yLa�E ;«- vir~ o � � a��o�ya�E'� �� p ~ �, N +. lQ "� m � ... N ■ Q d C �6 V lC a� m �v ..�. f/l (C 'NC o ai � o � � � C C � � N � � Y N �.�� .N O � d y C � � U -p.� `� �� o a° _ C � p IU [C � � � .�-I H � � � O �� +>L� x V � ~ � a � � C � � ��°'°c°� C�6 � � � � G. � � � � � d � � � � � L 40 N ds� ° p � a� a� > � �'�� '�C � "' O O ` � d � N O � _..9'. t/1 C w N � = � °>o�a� �oC��'i a d'� V C � � V � �0 acNwo. .0 � � O U I-o�co a� s � '~ o t � C ... � '� O G' � � o��oc��a C '0 > � 0. N a�i�a°'>' a�� oa�m�"o O. 'II � •� p) N � �p � C � N � � � � 3 C t 2 • O � � >+ � y O. ;:+ .� � � W � m O � �'v � N O O � � �ccN� '��ia•- °-' a� ct N� -vn�-'=� �E°'€c � t�ii U a N vj �a�imtn�� C � O O � � j � � m � � � �co°'No o�o-°�-o �.��°�'�o a��_� a� '� � -v c� o r Q l4 '� � C) ''' � CL .G N � Y � � U � C > � � cNvoo �a�p>-'c � � t C N � Q1 � � N � � „�� C O �= c`4._� � !4 � �p U � N d � � L C tq W � tq O—w •'= �� .W N 7 N O � t U C � V �. ca m v �E''~O C N U � C � C �� h 7 C p � '�D � � �, .LI C '�j G. � �,O � � 3 C N E°'rn�`rn � Q= G C � 0 O � U O j � � N O ��oo�� j/� N i� � C W ��°3 � o � � � � c t > � � 2 �a��o �v, N�a 1- cu ° 'm � � � � � � �, ° U V C .� m L � ll! C ,> � �. 0- co ,Q .a � N^Cl�t� U `'' •C p � vc�-°o� � 'o` '� " � v,n,n�no N o�,�'oi .. lII V O p a. c�,atyaa m:" m� aw m m�� Ow 0 l4� O � � t�i� � �0 •O. C N � Q y 'Q tQ'30��° a°_°�a�� °acQ�aEi� l0 � U � N °C M N L � d C H ` 3� �� v=c.�'c�a�i av,°E�aavi ��v�i Q�� X Ua°'��>, `�`° �' E a� aN c� -� -a c°�i � r W C U +• ■ � alC lQQ � � �` =N N �,cN�o3 a� �2� v�-�o ��'��o�'� � C � � � O � t�i� C' Q�� C d U`� � � C � C � O m•- 2 p C .✓ C Yv°Q�U j�ca as�NO.��cEn W �/1 (� C 0 •' '_ .,, d � W N (�j N �"UCO��a��E ��.�co>•-a� v� v► o o> o C C�' � a V► C N C1 V W p Y'0 C W� � � t0 � J C � � 'Q C N � � �+ � •� � r: �� J 3 O� O a 3 � � G1 �� 3 d L �.N N a, >= o a�� -°'v o- C1 d >. � O; y N �� C '� � � • L � � y � a� �..�. ~ � C C � O 0 � � � ��a�"��€ �a�, mco�3a� d� oHs e°� 3 w � a� rn� in a�� v O �1-2� m> � Q a°-'o rnrn;c `°° � V � C C U! > �p coo•-- c°�FL-v� W �4 aXiU1=v, � 0 � .n n. � 'r � � t c°1o�'�'� E� ��v�,c �� l0 d � N � � C � � � V � c- y o � � a��N� � � � !0 U C 'D a p� C � 3 � �c��o•� � �, L�sEo-O ,.,, � 0 0 N O C � a.._. y L�Q N tA '�� Cwt C .��o._�o o nU caca�� — 'i.t� w a � d t � _ � � v1�►�Z'ncZ W� WL€�►a� ��W`�oa�� s �ow°o�c C'�� C y � U �� , ,�, � �Q io c �: �oa�i��o�aei aE�oa�.E y��acd �v,�aco•�v, ■ H � 3 �O � E N N N �' N�•C � C � � � j., •3 C 3 � ... o, � �€ a> m u� •- a� c'�o -v � V c U �J W OL.�,�-II, A V � � � p� t�'0 C d E �`JO��p � C� U E ca t`a •- .o � � � � N l4 � w C 3 V/ � Gl = O L L = — � �a=~�wo C �" � V a1 C 3 V O � U '= � — � U � � � U W�� C l0 L � N� ` N O ffl O �. l6 N � p> ;Z` N � c U o�� a� o,a� u,LS c`a a>i c•N"'�~.� U � � C C � � 2.�� Z C v► N p p�j a O 3�`°�a°'c �, U �' � .E '�'-, N �C o -a c � o �QO �s � � � a Q� a� �� cL°' a�'^� a� � � O � H� � m.�U� o� r � o� �� °z� z �' O� ��z o Oa �Wv a4 w� OG ,,,_, U F� y"' � F �U � W (�l � � O w � � � Q W � a a � H W � f�r � W w A � Q o W �,,, �¢ ¢ w c`�.,�0 � � W � o � O N a. � E-� � �,,, a' �, O aW _. W � � A .r �'CL E"' � �W zQ O� a f-�. � M � c -a o � ° o a o 'c � .r � O '"' � �� d C � � � O ° n-�N_. u� =L-a� .., v, c � � "" W V C � � 'p w '� �, o •� a�i j � � � � � � O o, � 2 .-- e� V�vl O) u1 � ►�. cc c - m L � � V C C ~ ~ � c°� -Q c � o � c .� � Q .o� ��cocv � � V � d a C p� .nco �'Ecoa��U a cJ,a� c E u, �, -d •v Q � c� � a� -- � 'c -- a> a� > c U O � � C O �' �" ,y°' o'�>E°.t' ....5 � � �L'Q �� dO 0 �N � � a.Cic ��-ao�c � �€ a� � � .II�, o.� ��W�.o a�a� v��a�� .. �� N Q a'v, rn c�'v � o` � � `-°'Es�3 L � � � — � �i .� t- ', .� > o- 3 c°c"QEa�asZ •N Q � G"p ,'U Q •C O N 0— E 7 C O p d � a� c �'o��-w aa�°ca�3��,�,� .- L � v► .0 �, � N p � C....'C'V �.�t C 3� N O�.�' � Q1 N � a w � � _ � � =rnyo�EE��' L � � � � �0, � � � y � N 0> � _c�N�� c».co.aa��`co m °'� rnc�s ��.o � E •- m E- F- a�io�o-?�o,cp� aEi>==3.--�c� a� o � ;II � a� � _ .� .II � N L '� � N J � > 3 C1.p� � '�' � � o °s•�T d'�� U �p � _ ��p � � C �U _ > U `► � �N N U ��,L'fl �� av�...cEO'O� 9� y Q� ca �� C O ,o no�n .�ca�� -mct�E�'� � � � � !II a � O C� U�v1 � t�/� ul p�" I a O w f� 'O t�A �� L1 � 7 � c � � N a� �a ia �� _ .N � .��N Z � � � �_�� n� � �,00 .� _ �, J " � ... � O ��U L F-o3 � m j�-� C � �Zj,J O � � _ c W � � o a � w o w '' = U H � mc Z W m � W J � � J '� 0 Q N � � c O �a� Z � Y ao � e�i ZN oZ � � �o M � H �� O° U o� ZZ 2 ^ H� �� LL OW J p� �� O= �� O Z� J � Q' fv a� 'a �m � c� � � a o3i v�i ��>�WC°�i �.. N m�II 3 C F- .0 aj� C �Q °-°o��°�c o>�as€� � � W �p O � � � L d L .0 G d�,�`o=> � 0 lII � = C �O� ad= p� � v1 �Ec�m`QaC c c� c � o coa�a c�v, ^ � (A � o � vi .� ~� m � _ � ��m—°n� .o � .� � a�- 0 3 > a c�] r �� 'D �•�L a�i2 a� � U N "' G. .� C �) � �' O` 0 � »,+ :� � � � °' vNi ° a�i 0� '� � � .0 � �p � ++ � = O F- U d � a`�NacWC�'o� � W d � 0 � •� C .D r � U d ii � W ao c ._ � �c a� f`OLL N L �L � � C � NHt v�� d a�� C m� a �, a� ca�irn c�vc�o ?. ... a U � �- O � � � N � t t � ��°u'� � �� W t � .0 ~ C m��'O ��c O V N ._. w5-o:° c��o ocot'N N U � � �•a� o �� U c .� a� n- O V = j � V � � 3� Q` � .Q�� J � � E_« G � o >,oZ .a � � m € c m�cod= > = a ... •- � c � � � 2� a�0 m � c cv � N 0 O 'C a a� d � .a � �a 0 '�v, a C � d � r o lC y a= 0 € ma � L � ,�~ a o �U N U `-' O � C a�i W � � Q� �� I=- o N �� .0 � = o a� Z � O � I 0 J = � '� � C � O L � � � L � d � � o c � � '� � c � t � c =� t�. a� � � C L .a ��`� .p '_ � �o ,N � � � d � � � o � � �, .c o� c`a = � c� � a�i C '!J � C � Z? C 7 .�t�! � a .� c�0 .Q O � � V � a �'� � � � � �:. � y�QL � o •- >, v, d �� E � c = = ��+ '3 '�' = 3 �, �, o :«�°�c=�rn � ~ •°- _- 3 a� 0 r � p� C C C pf °' 7 C �- � N c�°c=-ov,E � N O •y C � N C d V X O_ d ' — C W .� .� W O =' `v►��'�=°oc 0! � N 7 C ••.• � �v:� v, o•- a�i E a� a ��a�� N 'Q � V > N Q •� � �3 a v Z � N ,� 0 J �a � c o I� N � O a� �,? E:N � > O � � O > � � � o� � � �v� 3 � � � U ?' � p, � � `� C p. � � N O w � O �' C � �6 �Ea�°io ca��` c°.� 'S € ca - � a� L�,�o u, dZ' o ��•� — ,Q a tI! � C � � N � � N � 3 »-, � � �> a=i N � � a�Ew o '� a� � � .V � G�i O � cp � � � � F � s. � �°�o�, �v'°" � � N zz� � C F Va0 � O U � � � � � � U �� H .� ? � U � � � W � � � � W E� L� � w .� a a '� f� � a O � w > W U � wO � Q Q av0 ,,,a � o0 W O w � O N G¢. Fr w �� , O W W N � / i� _ ,.w E-+ � � z 0 oW � a a � � /1 A �� w z z � � w Q H � � � } w � � � O H Z � O .-� .-..-. F- � w Z z � � w � H � � w � � � 0 H Z � O �t� °� � `� �. L O ... V >; U � �� o ��N� � U � L � � � � � y 0 C � C cQ O � � r �p � vJ C � Q C O a�� ° °'� a � Y � � � U � M �' U 3 V � � � E E � � N0 3 � a� � �> .� � � c � c 'o o, � Q, � o d _� ° � o a� � � � ouiU � � � N L m � �� O Z °' O .n v� �� d J � � o � C I U N � N � N C � 2 c m � .o a� � � .� � F=- o U a �Q O Z .Ll � a. � m 0 Z Q �v a� v 0 U m � .� � � o c � cv a ° � � d r U �� c� p � V L � a .- m W Q� d N C d � �� c N �` .tr � .��o,c G � aC:C >.000� �� au� �L � � C +�� O Voc-� L d � � 3 �, L C ,.,, C � C C a p 0 N � v� m•��'aL r o �- "r �� a� o �Uu� a� �rn o �, � �,�z�� ,�� 0 � a� �' �o o� � � L C C � O '�v rnl �° `—° u� � _.-Oa�� >, co � � �6 � � N C � 7 � H � W a 0 m � N "c .� � Q a�i U U � s> > � � � L N L U �� v� -� o� � r- o� � � � �' � N zz� Q �O� Q�"z a �o° � �" � � � � 0 � ��E� � � U A u,j W � �/''� 0 1�1 � � O w x � � m A w . > .� a a. Q E�-� W � a, O �.i W W A Ey � Q o z� Q�� a�0 ,.,a � o� � x W o� ONa _ . _ --� ,. . . . " ,. . .. ... I - �_' _ - _ �- . L , __-'_ i_ � - � '.. , ' .`__ _.______ ..._.. - .' _.. . .. . _ ... .- i: . - _� ' _ •: . _ .. ' '�, .,. -__; .�. . _t�-: - �--- :.:---`--' �- .-� _-,=z.. __� •.- ° '-- r ��., -_�- .,.-.. .. .... .... . . ,� . �: _ � .`--`----. �� _ . . _ � � I� ORDINANCE NO. 598 CI1'Y OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE A►PPROVING A REZONING FROM B-1.AND R 2 TO PLANNED UNiT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR CONIlVIERC7AL IISES ON 1'� O'NE1L PROPERTY, 2430 HIGHWAY 10, AND AMENDING T�E CTi'Y' S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP. TI� CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAIl�iS: SECTION 1. Appendix A of the Mounds �ew Municipal Code entitled "Specific Rezonings", the City's Official Zoning Map and the zoning district classification of tb.e following described land are hereby amended as follows: Part /ying soufhwester/y of cen�erline of STH No. 90 of soufhwest 1/4 of northwest 1/4 (subfect % r�ads, highway and easements) in Section O8, Township 30, Range 23. Present classification: B-1 and R 2 New classification: Planned Unit Development (PUD) for commercial uses. SECTION 2. This rezoning approval is subject to the requirements for approval of a general concept plan, development stage plan and final plan as stated in Section 1120 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, and execution of the PUD stipulations by the property owner(s) and recordation of the PUD stipulations with the Ramsey County Recorder . SECTION 3. This ord°uiance is effective thiriy days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City o£Mounds Vew this 12th day of Ma.y, 1997. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds �ew this 27th day of May, 1997. � /' 1 � . � � Duane McCarty, Mayor _:3 �:=--��_-: _---.= -�,� �_ � - ---�- - � - - . - - - - - ? ------ — — --_ -- --------_.. v,'' a� `-.�- � Ordinance No. 598 Page 2 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: � C � ` • Robert Long, City Attomey i-�noxm..oRz � Charles S. Whiting, City Cl rk-Administrator . , I �. \ ,� �� W � � Z 0 H � i i i � — SIDEV`IALK TO PROPOS'cD \ PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE � \I � I � I \� I � � I � I pARCSL A � � I f�� . � � � . �...� . , . � / � i � i � ,, ,, ,� /, , y, , ,_ , . . ,, ,.:. .;. .. :. ;. .:. :. ,., � �.,� :, �-I - - � � i ...� .,.. ��}- � .:. _ _._ - - _ � � ... � � .,. /0 ,r� � - _ _ ,. . k � \ .. _-� � � . .. � r GGNTER�'IilE OP" . . .. . .. \ .I S�R ��r., .. . i• .. .. ... .. i. .�. .. , � • ... � .:. . I ... , • �\ ..I .. _ . .. ,. . ,. : _ _ . �C` �. , � 'FULL SERVIGE' _{ � ;. ... _ .. .. .. ... M ' .•' ,; • �'rL_\ .. rAGGE55 >. .. .. ,_ . I : .. .. ,. .. '� y==--�• �.�' i � i� ... .. : .:. .,. • . ,. .._ ,�_ :.I :. . � ;. ;.. :. _,. ,. :, ,..._.. � � . �i r I.:. ... .. :. .. ... .:. .. :. ;^ �dRCBL�� i, •� •�' ..� , I .. _ .. : .. . .. . Y i � ,i � • :i �.�.....,� � � � �... . .. , .. .. � . . : L--r:J i� r� � , � .. . . . . . ... ... : � � � ..:. .:. � : �.:_--�---� i I X. .�. __ .. _ .. ..., _.. \: �.�. _. ... .,. ... .. ,• ri l _ .__—_ ::\ HI6M P ,� IIBTLAND 1 .;_ _ ..� , i n�\ '..� � . :. .. ... ... .. �Yt. � � —]� q06. ,aTeox_ eLev. eaa - ears ,�3e�,t ' ' I . � Ar morroM � ar : ��, , y,� � � � — � � i_ I ' . -i- •' ... .I� l.��},"�' y(� � �. t, ' • \ / `� R��'l ��, \ u I. .. .. ... .. , � „pi �,r��r ^ I. ... ~ .�. ��Y°: PS � � 5�m�/�cE _ _ � I _ _ _ .. . , �� : v�:��.�y � rv.� �.oW . ��RIGHT IN . _. • • , r � , , .,.I .: � .. .,. .: :. ��4� ,�.�" �,°.�?rx,� ' -....... ...._ .......... .......•---�- ' AGGdS ; I... _ .. _ :. � • . ' tr��v, i' ,. r" .. .. ...s. _.. .. �. RIGHT :. � i. .,. .. .. -;. ' ' .' . I C�e?:'�iLX - �� ......"'... . ..................................... . . ;x f✓'a 4. � q� '"_�� na. � ` �� ... ... � � i ``., ` � � _ .. ._. OND.'�1 . I �'�1� , r.. � 40f--� \ .:.� .: ... .:. ... .�. : J - ..".'- � I , . � : ' •� ..................�........."--'._. ......................C^.._.._..�.........._....1:................_�....._. :�904 � ,. � q. _ _ .. __, n rt- --�– --n '. .f"l I • : . , .. ... _ . , . , ��;- � _ � :_ : i : 4or. o�ice ei.v, I ... .. ... .:. r a00 : . ' "":,7(�O'00..�.... I � .... .. .... ..� PllRP POND �'2 : � : L . ov r-�ce - ---- -- . ... . .. APPP�v�� i C��(�l_ C� NC�T � 1 T�. �� -- -- -- �� S�� '1 SGALE: ��t� I " - ?00' GARMIKE 16 MOUNDS VIEW, MN HLM ARGHITEGTS, ING. JGB NO. �f6047 02-05-G�i I... ,.. � ��/% . \ / �� ►� �� /�� ,_ --- -- -- � GOUNTY ROAD H-2 ANTHONY PROPERTIES Real Esta!¢ Oevalaaio�! � Prtvastment 12770 Coit Rnad. �ute 1170 Dallas. Texas 75?Sl (972) 991-4484 � Faz (972)991-4494 Ir .0 r� - . .i _'_. . N - - _ ' ' ' = .._.. . _ - . .. _ __— __... _ `f.��.�__Y_ � -. .._ "�._ _ t�^ . _ 1 � = � - . , :v-- --� - -' '-- �-- ' - �. : --'.`�� - .— ' _ --- f' � ._.�. .-- .... . ..;,- � �.: , z . .�.. �:_. . . � . � ._ _ _ _ __ . . _ .. - �., .� �_- :_ -' ' - — �;m�o � �K:�s :� V1053NNIW ' M31A SONf10W � n��';�'L� 3H1V3H1 N33H�S 5l -- -- �.."`��, __ � �9ovaw�o3apuog .�NI "St/W3N1� 3�IIWat�� +. �d�wi� vBicO 4�W r i j f �I !i j � � E � .E � � ;! �i� 'i 4� �` `� _' j�� i;{ j�z k j� i{s� 2 a t � . t�� {s i� OK �{ � � � � {�R � _� � if�; �, _ 1' �l by 4. �� t f S # j� a S ({ � : �?a i� �'� �"� ��! '� '� � ; � { � �� V #� �jg i��f �;a � � r � � t . l + � 1� ► } ?�i ya7 :�q 1 �� 2 1 Ft� i•' '� If{ �a jt# t�J i =f, f, !'� � � � �.;��=I'�3�Fs1��jRS ;� : �f� �1� i �� t �: = � ;� �� s �� t �� } �� t;�� i{ 3s � f �g 1 i � /, � � ; j � E 4� �� - � ` �f�I� z .% � �09� /5,�..�. . �� , , � / � T , � / > � � � � � // �� 6 � 1 / O ' � � I2 . : , � � , � � � /. 0 � � / ��I 2 � � i � ' / Q i I / m I ' ' � / � �- / ' � � _ __ / __ �—__ _.._ __ �_"—_ __ ��—_//—_ _ '' � / i 3nitl� OOOM3'�03 ' .�/ \ / � �--� �—�, �, . ; � ; � � �� , .•" %. `\%. r, � ' _ _ ; � �� _ �� ,. _ , � J ,� `- g • ,y; .� �. ,� �.-, ' < � : ;� / °�� _ _ � � �j . > i � , � � . � -. � ,�\ , � 3 , ,� � � , :,� �.. . �� ,, \� , �� p j,i //i / ^x 9 I pa � � i�� 68A � F � � �� ' �r' �..�� I� I ;^ � 3.� Y � � ' i� / � s ,�� g , . - ��q 5 � 8� ; � ?�� ,' � '' C " '' �_ g _ , s, 5 !�'� . . 9 � i /,� �,o ,� � e � �z�'�:5 �� Q� � Q� � � is � ' /�/ A,. t�� 0�8� �� E�� , " o.^ ,,-"� •� ,�'--��,, ,; t.. : / � --------, . . , - � �; � � 1�P . . � �: . I � f i — � — — , --- — —.. �S,t � _ L �.��.�.. .��.J Iiie�U c � � � ; � c � � T �G � i • e i � � H$3.Q � Q � �� g� ;� � � eg C'. �� d�� A �� / el / � � R ' / �..r. . .. �� i _..., _ � �;� � � \� ; � F�� 1 i •' �� Q. ... ;--•, 3:; e� : 4 EE� � / ' �f /' �� ' "' _ _; ! t : _ - a! i 6 a a�R �i ' J�� , :�`�� ;:�.,. yp ! e+ � ' ,`p /' -' � � �y 1.�: '?3_.._. } �� dE0 � g '� � i �P . � �� 9.� . � -- _ - i Bp i6C�k - � :� p �� 'yp / �� ' � \ �c F_� � ,._ � [� ��8�4 p �� 3:`�;7 � �,r � . :_e: - � , � y �� g CYY / � - � / \ _ �� .— I 4 -- '- �6 i iS � �oi�+li �� ... ....�, ,P - _ _ � � � ' .��/ ,'� :. ' � ' �. -_� �� . � .�- �p _ � ---------- / �-- -- -.- � _ _. � - ._, - �� — 4w.. � �� .. / � L ,-, � ��.�`0,�::; �� . �i ' � •i �: ----- :_M ; !�� --: f ; � ��`' \ _ q� � ' � � .� °� �_;, . �gi �`. �.' •�, �`� � " !_, : `� • ; :�_�. • . t , :'�.� �� ~� �=i s E '• ' oQ. : . a . � �� 3 � r:`� �5 �' .•��i.• ��'�'�•�' ' i � �� `',�' � ��1�: � ; � _ �'> ``, : • : :�'—�- �—. , : �,_, ; : . . , -.;F� � �/ . I . ,/ �� ti.-°c;�-- --- -- — ------ - _ ,--.-,-� _-- — ---,-- -- l 7]NOl _ _ . �- � - -�' �_:- . . .._ � '. : -.. � .: �.�.._ i:..":'" _" .'-_:-__.0 L_'_ z _'. "_.__l .. _'__ __' . __"__—. __ _" . ._. _. . . . � . —�— � ,.,�,� �. V10S3NNIW ' M31A S�Nf10W r _ —"=,,.;,, 1 �irv; cc m..,e.x; +? 1 ( � � P�ms`�4�� 3tl1V3H1 N33H�S 9L " :.�Y:� — � �m��wws) •�NI 'Sb�W3Nl� 3�IIW!!<l� � r..._.... �,J °-'•€ � Y. �a�„ ��flo ,ww � i a e r i! j r�►fl' c�iff! i r •j � �� + r)i i��Sl'i �i i I ;�.'I�if{��i iq �� E �f '�l ��±li��! a (e ,i �;ia� - �� I�I�`�! !r'iri'( I��jlt �t i l��S� �!` 11� 1;? ��q ji � ;��,��',,r �� :� i I� I' lj� {� = p t�v -- �: 1! , eif�{1 ,� � i� ,; i ,.�►!f. �� i� �,,{'� 1 ,� �{i��, ; ,� � � �. z �,� I; �� i ��{� � �� !�� I+ i 1 t �I !'y �{ I- t li�i��. S�' �� = �{ � }� �a :!r � i (1� �e �e {�'l ! 1 �t j ' �{� l,! i�i I ` �f ' !3� :� ��` � r �t' ,. 1 i` ! t l � l �a !f s ,!S� t'j�f�i I�Ea� il I{I f�i j!' �i :�}�� 4��3 i F �� S�� l�� i' i c� c' i r�lll'1�''- ed �s � � 1 : {.5 ��.��- � b . � � � 1� �i (i ( {� � {f( ,11. (`t , �1 tl; �,•� , j _ < <� , ,- , �f.a, ��.—�—_ � [ �d, � t � 4� �1: 1�1 �� 1�+ �1{1'FI � t� �f�.l 1 ]c 3e �1 ��i #`'� � s° � : (�! 1�1''jf �4��iG�i il��i� f �i� ��I' 'l�;IIF -+y 3i�f i`if,i!; ��l� �� l� •Ic�f��l�l� ilj ; �i ^ 1� �; 1�1 I�i(,�il�� jj; ii �;►;i � : ii�;�ilit� lt�:l�if �{lii��l i{li� ilis(i t:i lltit = li Is�f li�!�� lili! li 1: 4�(�[��fii� i�: :�� il �� !° i!� l�lll{i�",4! �l� ,I:;+��I � , . —� _ . . . . . . . , . - - - . , . . . . . . /� / , A,: I;c:��°� ' � ' . a$ � a� - y� �Q ; � , , , , • I � � ' ::'' , `P3 � �q � o I i � i � � �. c� _ Ei i� � ei�e5r: z � ! �I � _ i . �i '�7ti �� , � ; ' ' � ' .ai �Qi,:�Y' :Xf\ ._,..,..,"."s.ci-' ; �� ;-- m ' J ,'' R: � : Q; �y'� ' '`� – ....� •t i,�'�'� �'�--- , � —/ '� -- — ... _ _ _ ` - _ _.: �.. "_""—""_.__--_ "' _ Y' ' --_ _ — ��—" _'"—"'_' � / '_ _ .3i �"/,�'� • � ..`, � ---� ` - — � . i � � ' .Y � - � " � 3nIBO OOOM3'J03 "��:� \ / +iF pt �'i _� ^� �? �� e7e � i�� '_—� � F Qi �.-�" � `r �%wi . ` — � \� c / �� O �1� I __ ' ".� ' . G �� • � i �j�, \ � � 1 .! 1 � � l/, %?"�/�. � \ /�� F E� . / , . `l'� 1 \��I � �� _ .' i ��4. �� , ' e��cE : � e�`o6 �y ' e :Z , � �� i a6 q} 5� �� I f� �" es QT . ;,{� ' g ei�a IA �Lt � :1 � @ ��i�e 5Y �� r�� ise ta: oo e ,• :..,� �r. ; . �1�3v `` isr � / I ,� � e J`� . ,� . ' Q. / � a I /�/ ��lP / � "�'' yo., � , '� , I '� rr`` � % . , r � � ,' �':•� , . �� , • ,�+i„ , � y' j �e � / � •'� ;:'�., • � � , �� - � , �, / B B9 � ' � • a{ / � ! { I � .; �� " �. . l � � I I�=..�-- ....., j � . __ ° . ., .,. . � ��. ' q ._...n.�._....._..- 8 F- --__,_?: _ � T:�' �--""`u -----r- -_ `---' .___`_ —_ _ __,_, C=: _ = .,._ .� r �w . __u _.� .. t _ .._ �_ _ _. � - -- ---- _ c� �+>s_, VlOS3NNIW " M31A SONf10W r "" --- �, • <a�..� i:�� P.�i -SNli� �j 3H1V3N1 N33tl�S 5l � --- _ :�...'"�;ue,qa4yw _ �� '°�9°"�'p°°sl ''JNI "St�W3Nl� 3)IIW�It�:] L �._�.. w�J ea:6€ r � �! { !� �' P�� IR,F j�Fi �yE'� ��ifs� { ' b�;j9�j��¢��i��s` i. _�' ;�b� '" " , a.j j y# YC t tj Yr-t � s�i f%� 1 � t- :. i i , 1,i :e27 ;1 Ii S'i [ � � �31 rr,i{e. { !'. i • j � c r - +� E �� tS �� ',f� �� c �s�°t j�i�� ti � f�F;i ]i��{�'' �� 3Ef �T � 5 � : i i �i �ii, f� �=�t tt�1p �fF' f� i�i�i� z�� fi�� ili. �� . �{� j+ ;� � Y�{ cfl•� �'1 ; �.tF i {}f ,� ��ffi, t�;•'- i , i`61 E� ; ��,-� -� t�� { � "�� iof•s �I1}� #��{ 1�}�};p`�(`d f- � ii�i`,ii{'l,ai�;' �j'E ��i {` f: -i f ,i' lt 1 } ��p�S ;- �ti 1� tei � 1 � �SS!'� �£� f� � If�f�i �` �� : E��+i �¢• �� }� �i�t �� : : a: FE �tt s{: 1€ �_�n! F{� �id�� sE, � e1 }f .f►, i.Lt,l�,�� a r S� �l4ss _ . i . . . . . . - = - - - - , i � � '� � i� ; ; i , � /� . , a , i � ,, o � � , / = i � - ol, � i � I o I i ' I , / // � ":,.. .^�.,�:, ,. _ . i� : � ; ; m � ' � / a �:°;� � - � ��—; == � � , ' -1 . — - - ^ ---------�--- --�--� - --_ � -------- , . .� ' anrod 000�� `�� .' j � , .�@- �� ,I � I �.� /� ' / ''t,��. , •-� _�. �1 � \ / / � ,: � � �, � i : r y ' , � � _ � ;'�� /� •U� � � i �(� ��%�j�, .'� ,. „� / / � .' � � � � ��il;�� =� � "'/ � '� � . � � �� , F � �'Jl� \ ',', ' �i n j i I �� , � _� , � , cr � ,, - ��'�i a 1 1 i � ,r � .,, . � � \ ,.- j' :.� � \��, � , � � l '' � I ,� � .`o\� ,� j ;.;<�/� � � I ,�� . ; ! v� , ,' ,- ^ <<' r� U I I� F � ' w �i+ � •' �, . � j �f I 5� � � y,�� '� / "�� i i ': - : � �� ,� � ,. �� i i i ! 1 g �� _ , q ,, . /�� T _ ��i fi �' 'j ^ j� .—.—�.—��.-1�� i ; I�� Y e � _ /^ I i i ''S O�. `? { 6 y'� j�p / � ' !� L°�e- 6G � C.w�\ I '1 C; ?,�. , � _ e i �� _ _�o , o P � c��, � :' , � � e ��s�e Q� �� r'i �p �! �`.— �_._.—��-t1 � 1i a_; � � . ,>t ;. i , .' .• - — - U' . ' a r::. - � , � . ' / .• • � • :_:... . ��— I . ....... . .. .. . � i s�• � Z . �a- :; oo e . �..f r°.'` � - - -- �. �i � � '•t /i f/F P , a i,�� _=; / '�t. GZ'S, / Y 1 I I I � fp4� _�." � i ie� ,� � � r�' - � � � 1 �� ,• ��s` � � � . (,. �/ pQ� /�� i `' : �� . ; I , �•.�•' , ,; �� z�� e, 3 Ii� yO�p // � 2� ~ �. �� •� {�• �,� , � i � � I i '1 i ?`" . .� ° i i t,. �? �i � � { � ' i� �`• � • KL ' , i � ' " _. i � - - - ' .- .— _ i = , .'� .�� ,�q'' -- - _,, �. �� ,• t . ;WY� � •__I_ 4 1 . i.' . .. . ,'� . ___- . Y .� � • 6? ..C�, �b _........ . __�,' , /. �..' � '" ' s _"'_""'."'__'"" ' .. ..... .."'"" __ ."""""' ' , . �.\ . . / i �y '�.'"__)'"...4c. 1 ' / ' ��., \ ' e : 1 ` A,- i � _� ` � i � a CI \ '. {; - ' �, /, � `� ,� � t / t� � .- , r . %t � tti � z ; � � '1 ,�I': �f� � I I '� . " ;�: ��g {= isr S � ' �=� ;; F; I � � . . ,:. � �_� � . ,..� .: �� j � %— ; i;.� . � ... =, :: �7 � ,. ... :,, ��Q � � � � � •:jv • �' � g`. �� ; ^� �.,, � ''••., �r �'i'� eEE `' I i" i � % � � � � �� p ��. t l, � � ' � '" ^ �rI.l '• i �. s! � I E;i ��i /� � ', :"`'_> . J y�, ,r 3 � I .., . � ,- R� � � tf � i� j:-4 � �- �;i Iv��+�` (E ei � 1 �2 � �..._..._ � �..__J..V.- b '1 � _ _^,.,,_ � � � � J� L ::: ::.� .. __ - - -.—„r :4 �' t .- cc.. � .-..,.�, �. .. ... � , � c-o------' _y _ __ -.. .-i .:i . --.:t . .a= 9Ndl:�'i._r.�..;..s � .i � �_ � �� a_.__.. s '( " .,...,...._......... � f � I -�i �f _ . Y - - - �-='— - —_.__._. --- � L � _�v_, � �----=�, �.._ =— — -- � -- - - . ------ =_— - - � °--- --- -- ,... . _ -- - --- _ w :� ' ' �a •dnm7 u8isap 4xW IL � L_�. s_; V10S3NNIW " M31A SON�IOW �� 7`�5�'�_�`i' 3N1V3H1 N33tl�S 5l ��s -�Ni 'sdw�Ni� ��iwad� y � �,.�I,��_oi��\S � ��-`�--�u�� c� �l p - �`n� � e � `;% �y 'I�� _- �°`:'' I Y �. ' . � o o�,.`.'_ � �{ C c_.�occ� cJC��^ c�:� �` U i i Vc' ^�c o o°c o`�o � �S r" I � ��, � i�� ¢ � �� U y� � Z � `z � g� � v� � ; �� r �� # '' " � � � � � �� ° C r p a �� I � ?� o o � }�C g r � 6 � � � r �: z ��'•,.., F� Q �, �4 ee � g� S � U y� f y �g �2 66 �i V �d � � m y� � � v s f t Pc '�!� st12 i q f• {§ �� 4 js �� j{t ii�� ji� ({t �� f a�'I � i`3f;E'� S))j ��FEi�6` i� f�� II� t%r�a6 "j� •il� �iii It�, �� dE r ; �1. E �QI � 1 { �SC �iz �y! ��k 1 lA� +l {};� ��`�F }Ij ;Si �FI' iR 2 1 � ` `�� ,p? �I�3Ff i�� f!s Z :4� a� : t� �►1 � ��t� ME� �� f Ees` ; ��tj� E�,� ,tp ��Z t�� 'i �it � --, { i�'� E��F � f � gs3_ �� ,�E t r;I�it4 i=1� 1!�{� 4��.l ji# ;�b i S �1 t��i j,'i: ��( j�lS :�!l �� ji` jp �t '�r} �'`! ��tfi';; ,4 ��3 �;' � �� J� z�k t��Fr �i{1 E�l; t�F�i'1 3 �I�_ { "��i pf ��i�{ �� `S !�} � � � � itf� i` t i� {'eji a.a ��S'�` 1] � �€ i j��i.,i a:tF s�9 1� J €� =�� t Ff9 ii t�;^ r{3 t F` {�)ti it!! � � ly�i � i,{:,�� g�� j��1El., t � �(i1 ,} ! �tf� ►_ ��€� t fij f#I� �►�� ?�, � � y;�, 6 { s � s, � � �� t , , � ti , il,�� 6kf� �i��l�� if �{#� �}� � {��! �E ��,i ;�;,€ � i� ; S; ;�j{t �i 1 ��; � `� �i��4' 4' �l'' �e ` ji� T "��'' ��, tj�}� �{z� #�� jzrs� i� ' �S{, " 9 I �i i= t u � { ` �E •!i�'i� �!1 rg�tFE' f� ��! , !� �; $`�i f,j•t �_F, �ift� i��t; �; f {jj`; o�� 1��1� jf�E 1��'�� ,ie# ��f a�� ]i� F{3i #it{� i�t� i��' a�°'" l�, t� i{i2 : �- � ! �l� i ! (t �S [�sE �Ta i c�_! 1� �� Je ��`i� t{ � $�� sa- f1 � �j > t{ li�ii � E; �61�f�, i'; aF� i�� }? 1�"} i3�?�� ,�t� [�t•� it�� EaJ�, ias t E�i; u j�� et�i�e�l t�E�� f�! i�! i7_{ �if �f �fl' '�i �#�? :`:�. St}�� 4�F� {�sFi ;#d �t sSP} .° tt .z (f ��r_f tr�t,t$ F'�S 1 S .t �-'�{{. t s}_., � e1 21 t� • s 1i.i1J{ �tE Ss I! •ii ( �} i F, ��' ; �., � � �. 4 � i� i!ltFttt i�Pfa tte4ats i�i E�t„ ,�!i �t ��: �A� ��! ili�;t ��f ►I1! 1��( F�a �� #Stt r --- �--"� y ; � ! LY�°�'�'�' �'J laie: 6 { � F` . � � + _� I -- E- - -- �_ --- - . _vv-: �:_ ._ .�. . _- - "� — = � _— �--- -= �:w - --- _ . i . . .. . i ., i i . . '. m c I v � __ " . ..� _ _ __ .__. _`__....��_.�.�s.�— 8 / / i / �� i� �/_"__ ��-> --- --- —:- - -------------- �% ------------- � � o`�a � T - _. - _ . _ .. 411 �_.-:_�...'._...._. '�.�.�^r�_'_ __�._..:�, y � im��i;��:n�,:7?.'.�fL'Sr�.!_!�J_S3V.L'.'.�':Sit:??.^�..T.':'-.: �-Vi '__ .�y:.� _"' -- ' ' _' _ _' " �t>,:3SL'T..S.L7?..; i;�:�.:j;_� ?�)x?iC�iiv.T�.7J4�iiR'.."�?Fix :'<r±Yli.�-.s--rsi_syi.�� ; T - _ - C1 � _ �, � L.{ q -S YN �+!?�jt�i%si}1�rT'�/ � O S � :. � i.:J:�_.�� ! .. _..�.� `, � y4?sLvR.�f..}_......}ii'r.::: � LL • � o � v u 3 t�..'n ?! SSLF �2m L Z Y'tri.mi;i.;a'_`. ' .- �f,i?,}'y,T ~ O � i i � /� �'�\// �� _ 1��`�� . �i.c' o �... _ ,...,;,; _. : E :` --- ----- -^ ----� �'°_ : � _�\ � �' ! E � � /� —✓ � �` � Z � � , �� : ! ` �Ya i / ` f �i i 0� .��' /� •� �� ' � � S � � ,' �o � � � �� 4:�_ � — u: � ' ' � f ' � — ^ I •• � �' ,� �+.— , . ��, ,,�. �i,'• � '• �'� � , o .I � i i �e� � � ��i. � �r.''ti. �t' i �• i�...�_ � � � � � f I i z � � 1 f!ttii , i � �F /� � �.� r '� i f �• � �. � ; � F�_4>.i, _ � t c : � �i �! � �1171H i /i �' / .� � � � \.. ��r, n.��. ',�' �' �t�� ' , � � z �j } � , � �°� � �` , ' �' ,• ,�� , � �' •' �:.' ,• � �, '� : ` i � a i '� ��' �,�--� �� +' �. � ' � i, _ s � ,�;�, j i� ' y� i�� '�7 l� ,. i, -�� i,� i� �. i,�� . � Ni ` E: i� � �� • ��• �: i v y i�' � � �1 ¢ c. ; � cv. „ � �, � i. ' ��i' �. t • � � i co �ii i'�.� � � �•� ��`�1. '�' « � ` i� � � � �9" � �.� qJ. • , � � � /� �i � f 1 I,I / � � �. '1'.�� ' �� PP� ` ' �� ryo�o " � 1 �t. � '� /� �'�. i i � � i. �.�' � ?' � +: i 1�. i �.�. � io. . �-- , � e. /� ?. � � ., . � / � �, '� ' �: . � � +. �. � ' � � r• �.. � ' �' � — i �c � i , l � i. / � i i i,� i��' \� i' - � /�� / ,'. ', � ,��u� 1.,� �!.i��. � i ! ��' � �. ' ��. ', J � ��.�t�i�!�� : 'i� .. , � i : / �. y ii �� ,. ' � �'' �� i �� l �1�� ' �'. . \ i:�- , / � �' \ . , � � ', ' �� '\ � . . . ,� ;o. / � ' 1 I I�. �• � V� � . ,�j� � , '� 1 • � \��1.� �. � %;i t 'i i� A(o ;�-�_,_- ' i� / �iY y�-� . � �� i . � � �� i • � � � si,�•�• . .�.' i i. :��v::�.ce � . � v ^� � � •� . � i � � �'� �� i/ /�� i��Y� Y,�{.��-\r:�:Ll�'� ;�•� �. �.l'� � 1 �� '/. '�.1' � r`-- n. I i i i �� i'�•y.• �t�: ��. �i5� n�i i.� � ��, � �.�. 1. 1. ��i, �� i !, C`; �'. , /,� � �� ,.�.,.;___, ,, , , , � l' ,,� , I ' �_ - � . % '�\, � � � ,�`'_,__' _� � p �1� i i _�� 1. � � r� . �i.-.i. �� /'• • . . i _ o N, ,. � /i �.��J:r _7��-� �. '� � r. �. �• � i � _ _ =f1�, � ��\1�1`� i - _ `�� .iit� � � � ll,y��. �.�.�. i. I ^ �:�f. C' i / � o \�- - �..._ -��i_ �I' � i � � � � � � �' = 3�'!' i�/ � �+��' 1 ' �� \--- w�_ ��.,��r�\. / . �f it ` � � �� I //i , %j; \ � i•, `\ � j i --^'-�� \� _� ;: i � - � � � �� , � �. a�,`�,i� ' l�i \\ , t.. i ,s � � � „ i - i � 5.� 1 f � i / I � / / �� V ' , � SJ, � i �\ �� \\. 1, �; / � { �/ ' /'��/ � �'�' .�:�� V,''i �� . ii! 1 / � �' �� 1�' t '��.� �. . A � � � / 1�, �. \ � . '�4 � �,. � '. � j j �r �\I I�. ;J: ,. � il1 ' I�. 1 � `f:. i •. �� I I�� / � � � '� \ � '� ,' /� , ��.� �y \�,i i , t ' �� .� il �. ��G�'% . ti� N' i�l� �� ;I1 � �' �� '�:�. i a -� t � .�.J �� la � i �� 1 ! . _\ � �-_:_ . i��t �. ��ii�`� 1 ��u / u i: � � r , �u � � �� ,�• I � � � . / i 1 ��'',�' ' J��. ;�,ti� ,-� ��, ��'�, U � � / ��. I' � 1' 171� 1J " 1 � � ' '_'� — — ! - ��. V�� 4.�� 1. \�'\� � tt�:�� .�� c/ �� t i -- �'� -- -- — wm� _i ooa-- � � i S 09 i{it� Se` �EI� �1�:° �y��! �le�i��:�F:�:a�Ei{!�?Pol�I :i� 2-o:o..gia�...�i�r�'.� . � _. E ��i��(gQC 2 I�sS �I�i��;� i�itl�iild��ii:ii;�sEsss�°.€� e � � ..GrtA::a.r..a��_�cera� � � � �,, �, _ � c�� \ �F �\ � \ \�.,,' -,.-� ♦ \ � �' 1' � Y"'Y- ��1� L�. 1 �i , 11� �.�� i, . , i i i� II + � ��: .. � � � �: II � ��, / :I� � i j v� � .�: � '� ''. t °. „ � I . _ __. /�i,/' �� ?'' �' _^-�-r ^ _ ��.`�� _ � _ r'f".- _ �, .orf,,� r • " _ � m ��'� � � ,, °� �;j F�� t�} ,,. ct� � �I {{ ��j a �t tj� { ti � �! o i �,� ; R .n f�� _ � dF� ��E � x � !I ., a i� o �t� �Y� � e . � i � i� �t�1 � ° � �� f ��u e ' ! _ �� .� D � n n r S pO 7 ao' A � ' rr : � CI �Y�w 3 r� t , � . � � . 3 ��- : 3 s -= - :. � � --� = - -�-- - ---_ ---- - - - �_ _ �, _�,- --- � - �--- -- _ - • �� o ��° z� �'"� Or gm � � m� F ? � �{ � � z � � � s � . - � k . -_------ ---- - !r: Mar 17 98 04�47p Wendell R. Smith 612-484-0699 p�3 �� .:. � II . � �� : S :1 � .� � � � � -� � . �9�� .-, � �� 0 � � � ��. �_� � � �; z�: �� x• � � �°r � � � �. • .:{�: ,&l:;�b�'i':.�,,u� � �_>, Mar 17 98 04:46p ." .� � : G? Z m r m < � � 0 z . n . J � C7 � t!S � Wendell R. Smith 61z-484-0699 I 35'-0" 7'-0„ � .. V .7 O b O m �n C V O 1 a T, m 0 � � � m Z vm��mp2 �b�v�92C�Z COm�Z�-n Ompm�p��Nfq� 2-�It�n2pZ� m�p4��r'^..�D� �?�OG�rnm DmO--amNp�m G1t�D9�OO ��QL�OQP,..�o b Z � Ly^�"LPfTI� fi n ��.r�� y:c ��O�m� .: �3 v_)• C Cl �_^ j vi C� o. �r C��+ �! � � • _ O a " � " ! CN N � rll D % � +�..� \ O � (fl ~ . ��1ynm �amn,y„��+'_r �o�D�00 m�Clmmp��rm T�.-��C/A pz' 2 D Zv,!C-1 O , :m O� m'� 7� q O r � P� N 7 H S-`�"?z " �?t v.�.ra �'�,'�z�� m z ^�O m O J� G � Z • rn O � � �� a . � � � O . K z 1 r �� 7. �o� m Z 19 > v � s m ,, O, � O v Z . �,, �o � v � 7 �' r 3.On � O Q�Otl N W O Z � Q rn m � .m r �r� a � ) �' Y m �a� � T � n i fn�r tn n r = so m T T 7 Z�!� � r z ^" b (! p.z J w ,-. 0 _k �� a �- , : F i _ . � � -� ---- _- _; - -''.- `_ . . . � .. _ . �- --- - . -: ----- - �-- - ._ , -- - ' °-- - . . _._. - - _ � I b�HMIS ��1!wwo� �eiaads uew��eya-o� uas�p uub ai�n� '�(�a�a�uig Xt�d OZ68'£81(Z69) aouapisaa 99£6'£8L �ZL9) Z66BS NW N►ain spunoW a�o�i� �no� a�{e� £99Z uas�p uut/ ai�n� •an��Q N►aip spunoW �o y�ou peoa a�e� 6uo� uo pue�s� ue y�nn ssa�e;no;y6�� ui ;y6u e o;;n� q�n� yans �i�}sa� /��qe�a;a�d pue uo��as�a;ui aniaa nnain spunow �o yyiou ea�e ue o; „�y;o�;np„ pasodoxl ay; wo.g peoa a�e� 6uo� o;;na q�no ay� 6ui�irasa�;noy;inn uo�}e�as�uiwpe I�� ay; ;o /Ipoq pue I(q �eno�dde and �o ue�d ;uawdo�anap 1(ue aas o�;ue�u►;ou op aM "£ •;uawdo�anap ay; ui �a��ed �ay;o I(ue o; d �a�ed paqi��sap anoqe ay; wo� ay�e� �e�noiyan l�ue;o uoisn��xa a��ads;noy;�nn uo��}siuiwpe /�ia ay;�o Ilpoq /Iue �Sq �eno�dde Q�d �o ue�d;uawdo�anap /Cue aas ol;uenn;ou op aM 'Z •„peoa 6uia„ a43 se paqi�asap /(Isnoina�d se yans;aa�}s a�n;n; �o;uasa�d `�e�;ua;od pue apn�oui p�nonn uoi;iq�yo�d s�yl •a;is;ue�ne;sa� e se pa�eu6isap pue peo� a�e� 6uo� pue p� Ilenny6iH;o �awoa ay; uo si ya�yM 'd la�Jed 3� Pa3�u6isap ea�e a43 wo� uey� Jay�o peoa a�e� Buo� o; ssa��e ��1e�� /��e iSU�e6e uo�;iqiyo�d ssa�dxa ue;noy�nn uot�ea;siuiwp� /�� ay; �o /Ipoq Aue �Cq �eno�dde and ay; �o sue�d �uawdo�anaQ ay; �aylia aas o;;uenn;ou op aM '6 •„;uenn;,uop„ ann;eym se passa�dxa aq nnou ��in►+ suaa�uoa �no `pa;sanba� sy •ue�d }uawdo�anap ay;;o ssaaoad �enoadde ay; �i;un passa�ppe aq;ou p�nonn su�a�uo� �no;ey� s;sanba� snoina�d �no uo paseq 6uipue;s�apun �no si;� •anoqe aya uey; �ay}o s;uawaa�6e pasodo�d �o uo��a�iaads ua}�i�en �Iue aniaaa�;ou p�p aM I(aNns aa�} g6/OL/Z a�npayos 6ut;ue�d-gg qo� s�ieaaP-b� /(3i�i�n-£� fiuipe�6-Z� ue�d a;is-�� •peoa a�e� Buo�;o �sea `p� I(enny6iy 6uiuio(pe �a�ed �a�ay; uaa��s g� ay� ao;;uawdo�anap pasodo�d ay} Jo} sue�d Bwnno��o; ay; pannaina� ann 86/L6l£0 �O 8666 `£Z 4�aeW �31`da L6-6Lt� 'oN ase� Buiuueld 06 ��+�►4�!H 0£bZ ��d I!aN�O �1�31'8f1S uas�p ai�n� uewney�-p� Wf1aNt�210W3W aa}�!wwoa leiaads �dHM�S �W021� a�do� ��ia `6ui3!4M �I�n4� `�le�S �3!� '�i�uno� �� 8 ��W `uoissiwwo� 6uiuue�d �Ol � � ____ _ _ _ � � " ' _ _ - _ _. _ -- - - - --- , �i � .L = � ' - ---_ c-'--�� x�.::_�_ -- - -- _ - - / . ' i: PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS V�W PLANNING COMMISSION CTTY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNI'Y, MINNESOTA 1. 2. 3. 2410 Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Cor?3r� 9:00 p.m.), Obert, and Stevenson. ,,;. ! ,,: 7y�"` Members absent: Commissioner J.p,I�rtston (e��;7 .�� y 5� Also present: Planning Asso�taC� Ericsot�,��,��iou: Koopmeiners (arrived 7 45 p zxx f; and Re'�order � �`f,�," 5 Citizens' 1Zequests a�td �`ti ments ora ��'��o�.� rao citi$.�;�-F =�,��s�ts and c,arrirn�nts. Special Meeting ��rch 18, 1998 . ��,"�,r,:s ��e�d's�'View City Hall way ll�, �J�lu��,li1�(�''�View, MN 55112 � - _— • �y'� ; : '>'� S��f l�. Y�d �S: 7:00 p.m., MaYC�(ry, �,i .,: t'998. oners T3a (departed at ; �zispector porgan, Council Liaison �� Hix. � on the Agenda. Index to Mir�u�t!�� ,,.>. �> Plannin `�ase No. 51'3�3��., ��,� �pring Lake Road, Consideration of Resolution €�y " �, No ,53�-98, Approvin� a. ��ci�zx ��oot Variance to the Required 30-foot Front n,<;� Ya.rc�_�etback, Preferred �.�iilders, Inc. � l�t��a.r►g Case No SQ�'a g7, 2625 Highway 10, 7715-7761 Eastwood Road, ��€��:��ic�x�as:ic�rn oFR�solution No. 536-98 Regarding the Comprehensive Plan �'�rxxc�}zc�xr��r�� x;ic€�Zezoning Request for Walgreen's Development, TOLD Development. I�lann�ng Ca.s� No. 515-98, 5394 Edgewood Drive, Discussion Regarding Development for the Mounds View Community Center (formerly Bel-Rae Ballroom), City of Mounds View. � � Page G] !�_ . ::._ -, � �I� i - ----- � �. ._�-` - . ! -_ � - —_ . � �� I _ -Y Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4. Approval of Minutes A. February 4, 1998 (Regular) B. February 18, 1998 (Special) Motion/Second• Stevenson/Brooks to approve the Fe 1998 (Special) meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes - 5 5. Planning Case No. 513-98 8265 Spring Lake Road Applicant: Preferred Builders, Inc. Consideration of Resolution No. 532-98, Front Yard Setback. The applicant, Preferred Bu;i��-s, Inc. Nays - 0 .; u March 18, 1998 Page 2 ?� ebruary 18, to the Required 30-foot Inspector porg�� e�.�ev��P��l the Plarz�tt��, �y�m,xa�i�ssion Memo dated March 18, 1998. At thc;:I��r�r}� 4, 199� Pj[zan�ti�� Commissian r��ular meeting the Commission tabled the first v�r-s�az� oi �'lannii7s-� f�: <�s�; '� l�,�98, a varrtance request to deny a seven-foot variance to the Reqtaixe� :�{)��o� i�-o�xL �j��c.� ��;�.�ac1G. City staff had indicated the need for the additional time t� ��A"� � v�xian6.;� i1�E,�� ;��,�� the builder's compromise to allow for a four-foot varianc�. tc� x€a� r�c��i� ec� :� O�i��L;�ront yard setback. +7`mal action w� th Minneso� � Chairperson on the variance request so the City would be in compliance that specify formal action within a 60-day time period. turned the floor over to the applicant for his comments. !a�aP�r°ayl We�iei•lund, representative for Preferred Builders, Inc., introduced the �.��ss�on to Bruce Fulcan, the independent home designer that Preferred Builders uses �t� c��.si�n their house plans. Mr. Westerlund said much time and effort had been expended t�ying to come up with a workable house plan or rework the proposed plan for the property in question. To date, the designer has had no luck in this process. Mr. Westerlund told the Commission Preferred Builders would be willing to build a smaller home on the lot, but this would take an amendment to the purchase agreement as it now is written. F .'�i � . . . . . .. _ . . . �� _ ' . _ _—,_ �. _ k,_�"c_.=4=:= ___`___"— _ _1 L ��— � .. . ." ' '_ ' „_ . .__ -__' . . , ._ . �_ —_ . ^_ "_�.�'_ _. y "�.. � Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 3 Four Chair Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions and comments. Commissioner Miller asked what the encroachment had been of the home tli� previously occupied the lot. � Inspector porgan told the Commission the previou� h�i:� e ha� ��pn•it i� �,,feet from the property line. �",�'�`� � �rt.. _ : � Commissioner Brasaemle thanked Prefened Bualck��s �'or ��time and e�c>��rh�t;was�`put in to researching, at his request, other home plan� ��i� �s4�; �ite. ,>J"`� Commissioner Obert suggested building an overs� E�:t� �,�.vc� �� ;a.rage, to comply with the ri%.% building foot print requirements, as opposed to �i"under:�sz�r� P�tr�;� c�z• garage. Mr. Westerlund answered by saying an a�x�z's�xed two car gara;�� .��ii�ld be very close in size to an undersized three car �arage ;�>' Commissioner Brasaemle problem because the house has to be 5' from the side p� the width of the house. T�+ ��44' wid� house �s��',�, �vvo car garage stiil has a as to b�y1�0' from tfze side property line, the garage only line ;�`o the prol��em is not the garage, the problem is w�ih �o garage�a all would still require a four foot �oxr�mr�a��r��r ��t��,r�.RY,r ��.ted h� was i�lclined to vote in favor of the variance because �he �tt� l�n��,r.i��e lot �ir�+�� v��g�sized when they bought it. It was also known that a variane� �t��alc3 i�c r��c�u.i��c� i�+ �xaa.Id;f� the property workable within the EDA requirement that a 1900 �r��x�� o� llo�� I�iailt on the property. S„ya :, � l e� nd• Petersc��1l.'a�C�I��aa°'Y,o approve the version of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a r�it Variance to tk�c� ��.�r�tazr�d 30-foot Front Yard Setback. Commission 01i;ei�t sta.ted his agreement with Commissioners Brasaemle and Stevenson, <:�. except for one;point; that point being this particular development does not fall under the �'ity's Hous�ng Replacement Projects. tt.;�L�� eterson suggested as part of the Whereas statements, on Page 2, language should l�� added to the second Whereas that says, "No new corner lots would be platted with this substandard size." The only situations that would not apply would be already existing properties that are substandard and the home on the property was going to be tota.11y replaced. The Commissioners agreed. _ _ _ ` _ ` ---__: _�. �------- -- _--��. r ,. _ : F _' _.,_ k ` . . � .��: _ .__� _ "'' _"' '_..__' . !. . . - - - , _ 3i t � - Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 4 Chair Peterson asked for a vote on the motion on the floor. Ayes - 4 Nays - 2(Brasaemle, Obert) ;%�� The motion carried. ' ;, � �. ,�, '' ` p � Commissioner Brasaemle made his opposition st�lement as follpul�; '�`�2r ��A, ut the„r;;� builder in the unfortunate position of having to d�;t�'e dirty wQ�rk'of a�tit�� -t�s � _`H� � rxi� controversial variance on a property that the EDt� lciae�.v w��ubstandaz ci n.+��l f".��,E �4t� builder would have a problem getting the variati�c� graxa��'�� rX he EDA , ii2 c�`��f..~i, �`�orced the Planning Commission to grant a variance on a pPOj�ci ��'�$; v,�o�xld not nornaally approve. Commissioner Obert made his opposition City had to do something right with the Ho around the rules. Obert said he disasrees.vt 6. ;; Planning Case No. 507-97 f r 2625 Highway 10, 7715-7761 East�rqttt{�R Applicant: TOLD Development ��`riipany Consideratiot� of Resolution I��o 5�6-98 lE�. Rezoning ��,q�est for Wal.;;y, ��'�;Develor��: it ��s ��(Cc��r,�, �.�'he first opportunity the plac�r��x�G�'�'ca,�� they decided to go ��r-oach Y�z 5��,`c��ri solving. , ;: _ .7 � ;=<,;s � �prehensive Plan Amendment and The ap�al��;t�a��9 '"�'�?L,L� 1�crT��Cs��a��a� Company, was present. Associ:�� Lu��;�a��1, j��ie;v��ed th'e Planning Commission Memo dated March 18, 1998 which gave bac;l<�;r�>�zr�nl iti%rmation regarding the March 4, 1998 Planning Commission � >meeting where acc;ict�9�4 c�ata for County Road I between Long Lake Road and Highway 10 was discussed �so discussed at this meeting was accident data. for the intersection of Highway 10 anc};County Road I. ��_��F�act to;=�va:�tres of adjacent properties was discussed. The American Planning ��w€��tt�n's(APA) research division was contacted and information was requested that �v�3azl'r�}ielp shed some light on how the Walgreen's Development would impact the s�_��rounding neighborhood. The information had not been received at the time of the March 18, 1998 meeting. As soon as the information becomes available the Commission and public will be brought up to date on this issue. TOLD Development is still involved in negotiations with the neighboring property owners on how best to resolve the water drainage and property delvaluation issues. 'I � _ , r . _ � - ��?_ __ •--'----- . 4 f __,� _ _ �� ` >:_- = . - =-- - -- - -- - -_ - - - --- - - --- --- -- �r: ._.__ ... F - - Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 18, 1998 Page 5 New information brought to the Commission and public's attention was presented as follows: Ramsey County will require that the developer improve the intersection of County Road I and Highway 10 by constructing a right-turn lane on westbou��'4�° County �''� Road I onto Highway 10. This construction, it is believed wiil pr�`vent st��ing of vehicles beyond the proposed Walgeen's access on County Road I. �'� NInDOT has sta.ted it will not permit the currently,piCriposed ri ,,.: � Highway 10 due to the following: ;3�'�� 1. Its close proximity to the intersection oi i 2. The property has an alternative means ob` Staff has enlisted the advise of Mounds View P��t assess the possibility of adding some typ� of tr�.�ic This step could possibly reduce or slow c�� z� ��.y�i Associate Ericson told the Commt �ion t�ac, �;��y f` Comprehenstve Plan amendments,require a.=�ubltc City Council but also with th� I�1�xYin�ng �ommissi on Resolution 536-98 until <��e�: �:h� Pub� c Hearin 7:00 p.m., at the City Hall ;;�' ; �� access and county �-a�� ; properiy via County Road I. c�,�a1�>��c� �ix� r:,��, lVlike Ulrich, to calmin� xr��vs�� °,. �o Greenwood Drive. �-,,��assin� ��r��a�fi;�a'tk�e neighborhood. 4•/ � a�c�t�bE � ►�,��%advised staffthat ��71��i��,�.��be held not only with the �� =�'��ieAeiore, no action can be taken ��hat is scheduled for April 1, 1998, rson tl�r��`i.h�.£loor ovr.;i t�'�"��.� Development for its presentation. �� '�ac��2�,��;Ta�r��n�� i�,�€��'c�u� ior TOLD Development, addressed the Commission as follo�,v�� Y�1�.E� ��uhc-tra�rd c��z �"c�k��y^,�oad I, as proposed by MnDOT, is acceptable with the develop��-'FaK�t� �h��>..will ati�ry�1 �.��z, �onstruction. �t`�LD is of the t��i��:it�ri �hai the issue of the right-in right-out access is being passed around from person �t� person at MnDOT. At first MnDOT indicated that the right-in right-out access sc.enario would be acceptable. At a later date, with a different person from MnDOT rev�ewing the plan, it was decided the access scenario would not be acceptable. C;urrently the ��.n is in the hands of Michael Christiansen, who has indicated the City of R�o�ands V�eu,►�'�as the right to grant the development access to Highway 10 over the ��,�F;� Expr�n�MnDOT sta.ff. If the City disregards MnDOT's recommendations, it is up to ��vd6,a$ Wir�T's staffto object to this decision. This is important for two reasons: 1. Access to the Walgreen store. 2. To keep as much traffic off of County Road I as possible. i_ - - - - --. = --- . _ ,-.: . _ ,. - ° � � , -- - -�- . -� �" - �. _ _ _ � --. - __ - �-- -- - � -- -- - --- -- 1 �_ �_.- . ..:�_--._..: Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 18, 1998 Page 6 TOLD is recommending that funds be set aside in an escrow account to construct the traffic calming devices. Input from the Greenwood neighborhood residents will be encouraged. <-,<;:, , �� ,>_` Associate Ericson requested that the Commission review the o� r� abF��c� �s it was drafted and review Resolution 536-98. Staff is looking for £��d�?�ck in ��:�a�c�� ,�,a,,r�eeded changes and also, if it is possible for the Commission to indt�tied if they �r� ��^�� toward �� approving or denying the Comprehensive Plan Arri��dment a�� lt�ezo,��r��, ��,�;��.�,si., ' Commissioner Miller suggested several gramrrb��i� would correct. She also questioned the referen�� l� was suggested that MnDOT has not given a defini,�i construction that would be part of this project. �r�f� which Ericsc��R z.?.�r�' fie review of thc; �iocess. It a the intersection Chair Peterson made reference to text t1�4�� a�i�;�r�t�t�-io a sidew�lL4�. '°`i"1-�e City would rec�uire that a sidewalk would extend tQ fi�f �,a�: �iQ�� ,6�ng ll�alc�:Road", he suggested this section of the Resolution would be ��plac c�t�-��r��I�i;l �� i�:�tjri's earlier comments in regards to where a sidewalk w�ll be�built anc��vvho i� �� 'r;<7'cover the cost of the sidewalk. , =Y'� -- .:�:.:.: �' ,�� ...... Commissioner Stevenso Walgreen property to ]�/fc �,.,t�rral � ��e;��,mner 1�u ,��a1 1]ll�°�1�UC �r; �� S2.IC�, "� curre��i�+ i��o��a� pe;d Cor�xtii�s��r,�e�� "�¢��•s�� [fiecsection of �'1i�i�vu� � .� �angerous. Chair Peterso ed i�°ther� were plazis for a designated crosswalk from the View;�t��a�r� ��/ ,:,,. d. h� wouici be very concerned about having a crosswalk i.he street isn't going to cut it", referring to cars that are af�ti�r,zones. �� seaCed that people go around the corner very fast at the :� �, and County Road I, making a crosswalk located there very the floor to the public for questions and comments. �„�rrol Ar.e.k;�;,�750 Greenwood Drive, said she would not send her children down a sidewalk ��f ��-�celves on County Road I to get to a Walgreen's store. She said, "A crosswalk is not �;e�ir�� io make cars stop." Her opinion was stated in favor of having a sidewalk all the way i o i ori� Lake Road. Gayla Keyes, 7730 Greenwood Drive, asked if the City had contacted an assessor to have an o�cial evaluation of the impact that the Walgreen's Development would have on the adjacent neighborhood. "� �,,/L �. r �! F _ M _ �.� : a. - - --- _ . --_ - = 3� - �.._.� `--- _ . � - _ ._�_- �_�_.___��_ e__ - �,�-_-_ --. .- -_. . . .., . '- .,_,. . _�,:_ . - -- (s Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 18, 1998 Page 7 Associate Ericson told Ms. Keyes the City has contracted with the American Planning Association who is doing research into what other studies have been done specific to the issue of how developments can affect the surrounding neighborhoods. The,ii�formation is forthcoming. - j� '_�. Ms. Keyes told the Commission she had been in touc�Z;y�ith t�� x�� r.:;r,�neral's Office. They have indicated the City of Mounds View wo�Idyultimately 1�� St�xG�x�;��lly r�spons�ble� for any negative impact that the development wou�t�have on ��e �ic�J�� ;=h�,c��ho�� property values. �'� ;�sf' ' '>� � ,�.,... � Commissioner Brasaemle told Ms. Keyes that ih� ��is;� ,�}�E.��-r��y would bc �i,�, ��t�l�ropriate person to respond to her statement ,: ; _ Chaii• Peterson opened the floor for disrussi��;:�f �Ir.� Comta�is�i��?`<� ��.ossible leanings on the Walgreen's Development. Commissioner Obert stated the penple he ha� i�l1c.��i tcr, ancl i�edback he has gotten from the community forums, indicates t�e citizeta�;oi th� ��.tnity want any commercial ��_; development that takes pla.c�r �v�i;��iin the �i�y to be res,�rici�d to the Highway 10 corridor. i JF. �/ Commissioner Brasaem to H�ghway 10, and tl�as z � ,<, I��f� .�_r.'��;� �5lcr;c� the (�'�1rt�� dPV��r��,�xt��x� to encr-o�iu�� CO IIl I�TI ll.�� ll�il�i; f�l<.° <�i�1��`.'='f ��! c� E� e tial us� �i�served t��t the W��een's Development isn't strictly limited K��. e dilerrd�� '��t3evelopment. � <:� e,ion to wf�<�l �„ient the City was going to allow commercial ��.�identially zoned areas. Ms. Arel to keep in mind the fact that commercial City's tax revenues. Commercial taxes subsidize the Chair Peterson s��ed'that access to the commercial areas is the one element that will keep ;.:;> the commercial.t�evelopments centralized to the Highway 10 corridor and out of the neighborhood:��sidential areas. It is not convenient to get offof a major road to access �. .c,ommerci�ai business. �v�E�i; ��;�yes made the observation that quite a lot of the commercial development that is �oyxi.� on in the City is TIF funded. She stated that these TIF funded projects don't add anything to the immediate tax base. Commissioner Brasaemle responded by saying the Walgreen Development is not a TIF assisted project. --- - - ---- ---- �- - - �J .. . _ _. . . _ 1 J Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting . . '--- .---. -- .- I �� ' _.'_ 4 - ' '--_ --s-�I �-r�--7-� .�. March 18, 1998 Page 8 Ms. Arel told the Commission that they would be setting a precedent by rezoning the residential areas to commercial for the Walgreen development. Commissioner Brasaemle told Ms. Arel that the this Planning �' sensitive to the issue of rezoning residential property �nio com�a,� that this Commission is not interested in encouragin��€j%i�ajor e��i property through Mounds View turned into comm�r�ial+proper'cy. frontage on, and adjacent to Highway 10, are the;a,r,eas that are;�e commercial development. ,:"��, ,;;;;;��'� ��:, � Commissioner Brasaemle said he is still ui and asked the staff to develop resolutions to project. Commissioner Miller stated she, too, is ��i�S �,n Commissioner Obert stated he �s fia;ving trou�sl , to deny the project. The City doe�;tieed to :tak�e potential in order to keep the,Git�'s serv�c� at a Cih'• .....'-0t�� .;rr Chair Peterson sta cc c��,;co;a� ihiz�!,��r�ducing mc�� ;��, x� ��v<;�t��i�r��nc is v��; €;e�ci� Cor�r�a4�siozi:is to tgy �nc� a3 City's r�;std�z��.' ,�'h� t:w� �; is undeGic$�d b�u�; lt��ni�� o ed :s�:�m�ss�b�"was very a°�i�t1 p�'aperty. He added �A�� i;t� ��;a wide swath of ;� �< ��e��erties that h�� a• f�`�� i�►g c.�a�a:;.�d�r�c�. for .� %;� algreen's Develo�d,�erit issue 7�,oval and denial of the ect. � c�e�ision whether to support or o�its commercial development e level for the residents of the ercial �a�o��r��e worth more than residential properties, nue. ��r�,cC�y �rain a financial point of view the Walgreen's � tla� Ciicy c�i'IViounds View. The role of the Planning r� out which course is best for the City's businesses and the �� h��!e to be balanced against each other. He added, he, too, rzU <��roval of the project.. �s: Keyes and �kz� �`csmra�ission had an extensive discussion in regards to how the '(�Valgreen's Dev�to�r�erai might effect the adjacent properties' ability to handle water runoff. . '� �ommissione;r:�tevenson reminded Ms. Keyes that TOLD Development has offered to , ::� �rade the deuelopment site in an effort to alleviate water problems occuring in the adjacent :: fJZO�ert�es: `'T'his work could be made as a condition of the development agreement. P�.ssociate Ericson infonned the Commission that this item would be on the April 1 agenda at which time Staff would provide a report which addresses these issues. i ��,�`�d�.i�'�--"�i� f�"�_�„ ..�� - -_ + � ' -� � . '_ �_ _ -- ' I' ' ___ .___ -___ - .c_ . _.__. .- _ ,.,��,�-,},�. � � � - , tcm.�f.�(� �XS�"n`�S'' r . Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 1Vlarch 18, 1998 Page 9 7. Planning Case No. 515-98 5394 Edgewood Drive Applicant: The City of Mounds View Discussion Regarding Development Request for the Mounds �iew r-;:<;. Bel-Rae Ballroom) �''`'`'� �.,,.:.:.<;... :r, :..:.. <:�.:�;✓ The applicant, The City of Mounds View, was p Associ�te Ericson told the Commission the stafl presentation. In light of this development, staff i 515-98 be ta.bled to a future meeting when mor� Issues that will need to be addressed will be : 1. 2. 3. 5. :;�� l y�.c��_�aG C�ai��± Comr� A possible code ame Possible rezoning to Development r�vieU Wetland alteratiora , A public heari.z��;�t;:9 r� �� ,'o �S t:�JiC1 ... R..�, ,: a parti.e��ar use in Yhe area. ,:: ��F' '� , , ;a.. �� zc,r.i� ic�r�� enter(formerly project is s�:Ali s}.��: ��ady for �; that Planning Case No. ��?ilable. � the Commission ect, bu�'rio approval has been obtained from the appropriate �mended pursuing a code amendment route to resolve the issioners agreed saying the property should be left B-3. Chair Peterson cc�r�� Y��'<� with Associate Ericson that this item would be on the agenda for discussion at the nextPlanning Commission meeting. RTS/Il�TFORMA.TION ITEMS Y�eca� of March 11 1998 Communitv Forum Meetin�(second of three forum - verbal reportl Associlte Ericson told the Commission that no summaries had been drafted of the March 11, 1998, Community Forum Meeting. The Commissioners, in a discussion ',�� i - ` s� l F =_ - : . : , _ - - - --__. , . . -. ,.-- --- - --------_� - =- - -; _ . _ -_�_ ;i :i ��. - - - ` --= - � ---- -_ �r�. : Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 10 C 011"1 earlier in the evening's meeting, gave some feedback from the meetings they had attended. Commissioner Brlsaemle stated the following points of interes attended: Commercial development along the High Future development of the Anoka County, Transit issues. Trails along Highway 10. The Highway 10 Corridor Design Themc. Chair Peterson agreed with Brasaemle's o Residential development within Infrastructure development. �� Developing a downtown fee��wi locallY• :�'' ;;Y CHAIRPERSON AND J�evelopment Director he had View, meeting local needs S REPORTS �re the Special meeting of the Planning Commission meeting at 9:06 p.m. Meeting adjoumed to the Agenda Session). I. � � k� r _. -=�i �f. _- _- . _. :_��- ----- -- � � - - -_- ,.� _ _ �'- � memo to the ' Plannin Commission TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Jim Ericson SUBJECT: Commission Packet 4/15/98 DATE: April 11, 1998 As you can see from the agenda, there are many things before the Commission at this meeting. Because of the Good Friday holiday and the number of Planning cases, this packet was delayed in getting to you, for which I apologize. I'd like to point out that I have provided resolutions for all of the items, with the exception of the Theater, which is not included with this packet. This will be delivered to you in some form before your meeting Wednesday. The three conditional use permits are non-controversial as is the minor subdivision, thus action should be possible. With the CUPs, public hearing dates will have already been set for the 4/27/98 Council meeting, so if there is any information that you need in order to take action. Please let me know and I will arrange to get it for you. The simple minor subdivision is also non-controversial, so I would expect that action could be taken on this as well. I had not originally planned to provide you with resolutions for each planning case, but I would like to clear the schedule so as to not get too backlogged as we approach the busier months. The other two cases, the Bridges review and the Walgreens resolutions of denial, should not pose any difficulties as you've seen them before (in the case of Walgreens, six tim�s! The public hearing for Walgreens will take place at the Council on Apri127, 1998. Bob Cunningham hopes to have gained the support of all neighboring property owners by that time. The cash settlement amount has been increased and he tells me that three property owners have signed on. Regarding the MnDOT access, the site will work without it if MnDOT holds firm--I told Mr. Cunningham that the City would not act in defiance of MnDOT. Included with your packet is the Council agenda for April 13, 1998. Again, if there is any information (other than Theater info) that you will need in order to take action on some items, let me know, Expect to see the theater report soon. Thank you. ... _ t ; _. _ _ _ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION April 15, 1998 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Approval of Minutes: No Minutes for Consideration Planning Case No. 522-98 Property Involved: 2535-2585 Highway 10 (Moundsview Square) Consideration of Resolution No. 543-98 Approving a Conditional Use Pernut for Temporary Produce Sales Applicant: Craig Gilb (Merryville Farm Market) 6. Planning Case No. 520-98 Property Involved: 2824 Woodale Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 540-98 Approving a Conditional Use Pernut for an Oversized Accessory Building Applicant: Ronald P. OveRon 7. Planning Case No. 518-98 Property Involved: 7581 Spring Lake Road Consideration of Resolution No. 539-98 Approving a Minor Subdivision Applicant: Charles Schultz 8. Planneng Case No. 516-98 Property Involved: 7858 Long Lake Road Consideration of Resolution No. 541-98 Approving a Conditional Use Pernut for an Oversized Garage Applicant: Thomas Lammi 9. Planning Case No. 507-97 Property Involved: 2625 Highway 10, 7715 - 7761 Eastwood Road Consideration of Resolution Nos. 536-98 and 538-98 Denying the Walgreens Development Request, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Requests Applicant: TOLD Development Company � --� .. . {-- . .. .. __ �. �,<->-� y �'." . -I �]� � _ ... ..Y �7C ;� . _ .. . '._" _ ... . _� +.r:._s,_1` ..t--c.:-_...� ...• 4._� .. - _,_..e .__ __"" __ " .. "_ '__ _ `_ .r''�'�I �.� .-Y.- Planning Commission Agenda April 15, 1998 Page Two 10. Planning Case No. 514-98 Property Involved: 8400 Coral Sea Street Consideration of Resolution No. 542-98 Approving the Development Review for Completion of the 2nd Phase of Bridges Technology Building Project Applicant: Bridges Leasing Company, LLC 11. Planning Case No. 517-98 Property Involved: 2430 Highway 10 (O'Neil Property) Consideration of Resolution No. 544-98 Approving the Development Review Stage of the PUD, Preliminary Plat and a Wetland Buffer Permit Applicant: AP Mounds View Limited Partnership (Anthony Properties) 12. StaffReports/Information Items 13. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 14. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting *************************************�** APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717-4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. *************************************** (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) AGENDA MEETIN T AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. March 18, 1998 (Special) b. April 1, 1998 (Re�ular) 2. Meeting Adjournment � , - --=- - -- -- ---_-- � - � : �_ _ ___ __ __ 2. 4. IVIOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION April 15, 1998 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Call to Order Roll Call Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES Approval of Minutes: No Minutes for Consideration Planning Case No. 522-98 Property Involved: 2535-2585 Highway 10 (Moundsview Square) Consideration of Resolution No. 543-98 Approving a Conditional Use Pernut for Temporary Produce Sales Applicant: Craig Gilb (Merryville Farm Market) 6. Planning Case Noe 520-98 Property Involved: 2824 Woodale Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 540-98 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Accessory Building Applicant: Ronald P. Overton 7. Planning Case No. 518-98 Property Involved: 7581 Spring Lake Road Consideration of Resolution No. 539-98 Approving a Minor Subdivision Applicant: Charles Schultz 8. Planning Case No. 516-98 Property Involved: 7858 Long Lake Road Consideration of Resolution No. 541-98 Approving a Conditional Use Pernut for an Oversized Garage Applicant: Thomas Lammi 9. Planning Case No. 507-97 Property Involved: 2625 Highway 10, 7715 - 7761 Eastwood Road Consideration of Resolution Nos. 536-98 and 538-98 Denying the Walgreens Development Request, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Requests Applicant: TOLD Development Company _ _ _ . _�: � � = - =�--�_�,� :_- .__<=-- °- -- � Planning Commission Agenda April 15, 1998 Page Two --_ - - -- � .=- =-- ------- `-�� k-�- - � 10. Planning Case No. 514-98 Property Involved: 8400 Coral Sea Street Consideration of Resolution No. 542-98 Approving the Development Review for Completion of the 2nd Phase of Bridges Technology Building Project Applicant: Bridges Leasing Company, LLC 11. Planning Case No. 517-98 Property Involved: 2430 Highway 10 (O'Neil Property) Consideration of Resolution No. 544-98 Approving the Development Review Stage of the PUD, Preliminary Plat and a Wetland Buffer Permit Applicant: AP Mounds View Limited Partnership (Anthony Properties) 12. 13 14 StaffReports/Information Items Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Adjournment to Agenda Meeting **************************************** APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717-4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. *************************************** (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) AGENDA MEETIN AGENDA Review of Minutes: a. March 18, 1998 (Special) b. April 1, 1998 (Re;ular) 2. Meeting Adjournment �i � � p -� - `7 . . � - . _ _ . � � _ � - .i �' r_��_-_ �_�.__ — f .=- —. :. ___.. _. _ = - - --- _--� - _ =- - -- -- --- - — - _ �. � .�. . � REQUEST FOR PLANN�ING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: Staff Report by: Planning Case No.: Request: Applicanto Location: PIN No. Zoning/Land Use: Applicable Itegulationse April 15, 1998 James Ericson, Planning Associate 522-98 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Pernut to operate outdoor sales of produce at Moundsview Square. Craig Gilb, representing Merryville Farm Market Moundsview Square Shopping Center parking lot 07-3 0-23 -11- 0079 R-4, Regional Business District; Moundsview Square Shopping Center �gc.ti�n 1115 04, Subd. 2, which allows for open or outdoor service, sales and rental as an accessory use with a conditional use pernut. �P�t;r�n 1125 O1, Subd le, which states that the Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of proposed conditional uses. Section 1125.01 ubd. le, which states that the Planning Commission shall make flndings of fact and recommend such actions or conditions relating to the request as it deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and forward such findings to the City Council. Attachments: Background: Planning Application, dated 3/25/98 Zoning Map Site Plan Letter from Paster Enterprises, 2/10/98 Letter from City Attomey, dated 4/8/98 Resolution 543-98 Craig Gilb, representing Merryville Farm Market, is requesting a conditional use permit to operate an outdoor produce stand in the parking lot of Moundsview Square Shopping Center from July 1, 1998 to September 30, 1998. The produce stand would be open seven days a week from 10:00 am to 7:00 pm. and would be selling produce home-grown from its farm in Waverly. The stand is a five-sided gazebo-like structure with a canvas roof , and is 14 feet wide at its widest point and 9 feet high at the peak. The stand requires no utility hook-ups. The produce stand was granted a CUP the last two years at this same location. Staff is not aware of any problems associated with this operation. Analysis: �- s : -� - --= I '�-- �_��.---- u-5 --� '��Y� r.r . ---- � r -� �-- -�= Merryville Farm Market CUP Plannuig Case No. �22-98 April 15, 1998 Page 2 - _ 1 �, �� - ---- - : i _ �� -.- --- =_ � � __ Mr. Gilb has stated that this will be the same operation that was approved last year for this location. No changes have been proposed. The dates of operation for the farm market, if approved as requested, would overlap by 15 days with Linder's Greenhouses, which was granted an outdoor sales CUP until July 15, 1998. Linder's will be dismantling its greenhouse sometime in between June 30 and July 15, so the overlap of operations could be less than the possible 15 days. In the occurrence of an overlap of uses, there should be little impact to parking, as the produce stand would occupy only 110 square feet of the parking lot. Signage for the produce stand will be accomplished with small banners ai�ixed to the gazebo base and lettering on the canvas roof. There has been some question regarding the legality of requiring the applicant to go through the CUP process because of its status of a seller of homegrown produce. According to the City Attorney, whose letter is attached for reference, the City cannot impose any licensing requirements upon the applicant. The City can, however, control the time, place and manner of the operation through a conditional use permit, so long as the requirements do not in effect prohibit the use or impose undue hardship. Staff has discussed revising the Code to allow such temporary sales (such as Merryville or Linders) as an accessory use. The City Attorney is drafting an amendment to the Code that will accomplish this. The amendment will be brought before the Planning Commission for comment and review upon its completion. � CUP Requirements: The criteria for approval of a conditional use permit appear in Section 1115.04, Subd. 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. They are as follows: a. Outdoor service, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirt.y percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principal use. The shopping center contains 102,035 square feet of building area. The applicant proposes to occupy I 10 square feet of the parking lot, which is less than 1% of the building square footage on the site. This criterion has been met. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with Subdivisions 1103.08(1) through (5) of this Title. The parking lot fronting Highway 10 does not abut any residential properties. The nearest residential property is Wildwood Manor, an apartment building for senior citizens, which would be well screened from the proposed use by a stand of trees. c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of the Code. The applicant will not have any lighting associated with the produce stand as it will be .'_'- __ _. . -. �a . L __r., .�� _ '__--_ � _-_ _-s� �-=� _� v .. � - .._�; 1-='_ _�3�.:�:u,�:=: __ 1. . ------ -- —� — Merryville Farm Market CUP Planning Case No. 522-98 April 15, 1998 Page 3 operating during daylight hours. d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The applicant is proposing to use an exis�iing parking lot which is surfaced with asphalt. This criterion is met. Staff believes the criteria for granting a CUP have been met. The Planning Commission shall also consider any possible adverse effects ofthe proposed use as required by Section 1125.01(1)e ofthe Municipal Code, which are as follows: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The proposal is for a temporary produce stand in the parking lot of an existing shopping center. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as HC--Highway Commercial. The produce stand is an appropriate use within this designation. The shopping center is surrounded by roadways and the area where the use is to be located is 1,000 feet from the nearest residential property. The sale of produce is a typical seasonal business in a community such as Mounds View and it serves a community need. The short duration of the use will result in little, if any, adverse effect upon the surrounding area. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 543-98 recommending to the City Council approval of a conditional use permit for Merryville Farm Market to operate an outdoor produce stand at Moundsview Square Shopping Center from July 1, 1998 to September 30, 1998, with stipulations. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:�DATA\GROUP S\COMDEV�DEVCASES\522-98�MERRY-PC.RPT , l �•-� � � A ..� . .�.;n �. i •� �e/�.� �'� �`;.!::'��:':i'�� COMI-IUNITY DEVELOPNfENT DEPART1�IErT ;: - % DEVELOPNIENT APPLICATIOr' » •p� ;::��y;� 2401 I-�ighway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 ��'�t ' P��rnet��'•� 612-7I7-40�0 612-784 �462 - F�.�Y Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of Tbis Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address '1��',► ,T �,'l� U� Sn 2-r,' � S-� S l�' - — � ✓� G ►� ,.r.1 Al � S � ��r � Telephone I-- �� 2. -- Cc SQ- ��c � Fax_�-�i(2- �S�-�7 Intere�t in proPerty (check appropriatc box) — - o Owner of Properry ❑ Contract for Deed Owner � Lessee, Operator, Managec ❑ Agreement to purchase o Other (explain) Appiicants must provide evidence of intemat in property at the time of application, anJ if you are not the owner of the property, you musi provide a letter of pertni�sion from the owner;iving coaseat to the filing of thi� agp(icatioo. The property owner must 9ign this appGcation for it to be accepted. Property Description/Propo9al Address or General Location Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning (�7 �3o - a.3 -- I 1-o o7 q Type of Applicndon _ a Compreh�ive P(an Ameudment o Rc-zoning � iJisjor;;uouivi�lou � Minor Subdivision � Planned Unit Developmcnt (PUD) c PUD Amencimene �C Conditional Use Permit � Variance ❑ Code Appeal o Develop R�viCw/Site Plan � Wedand Alteration Pelmit c Wedand Bui�er Pernut � Floodplain Pennit � Other �250 5250/acre; min SZ50 max � 1�00 �Z�U + �2�p �osit* $Z00 Refer co rezoning rees S3S0 � R-1, R-2 $75; all others �250 R-1, R-Z �7�; a11 others �250 SIQO . � 12�/acre; min � 12� max $750 R- I, R-2 $ I�0; all orhers �200 R- l, R-Z �25; all others � I 00 �200 �y � '�D *Deoo�i�s shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staT�or consultant time spent in rhe review, research �r preparation uf mat�rials associa�ed with this applicaaon. The applicant shall be responsible for all rensonable- incurred costs in excess uf the initial denosit amounG Anv portion of the deposit not spent or �ncumbered shall be reli.uided co the applican�t within thim� (30) clays ai�er consideracion ot the applicatioa is completed. Ple:ue complete the reverse si�le of this applicatioo. City of l�lounds View, ititN Development Application Pa�e � Present Use of Property ❑ UndevelopedNacant : � ❑ Duple:dTwo Family Dwelling � . Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Other (e:cplain) Properry Classification ❑ Absuact ■ . 0 Single Family Dwelling Multi-family Dwelling Industzial Establishment Tocrens BY ti1Y (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLcDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRLTE aNn ar_r_Tma� Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (ryped/printed) Signature ofProperty Owner lame of Property Owner (typed/P�ce� Address of Owner _ . Phone Number of Owner 222�. � VL�'ll`vL�-il'�-/ /�✓�• S-�. PU�L � . �N SSII y �Cil2) �tyG -7qol -�ep hA n � e }�u�ch� ********�*�»******�****»**»»*******»:****�**************.*:�*�»**********»*:**************»»**** R OFFICE USE OIYLY Date of Submittai __ � ;.�j�` —� Date of Acceptance Assigned [o: Planziing Case No. 60-day Limic 120-day timit 30� -� � . Fees Paid: Account � Checic n � Receipt � Application: .L'� � rj� �� s Park Dedicacion: Deposits: `ter t otal: `!:`.Dr1T.a�GROUPS1C01�IDEL�FORbtS�DEV.af'P.FOR 1/98 E �v 802 Y p 8023 BOi 8009 8004 7981 7970 7979 7960 7959 0 7956 � 7949 7950 a N 7900 7901 HILLVI L1� /� cnv SILVER VIEW PARK _".._ uu,,,. 8018 8011 8006 7990 � J981 a 7980 7969 7970 7965 7954 7959 7940 i945 7930 7935 � n � 7900 '� fO N N ;_ . _ _ _ 8000 y` y �022 8019 8030 �J�� U29 di,�! au, ao2� 8000 8001 8010 8011 9000 8005 801 7990 0 7989 7996 � 7993 7990 7980 � 7979 7980 � 7985 7970 7977 7984 7989 79 7966 7969 7960 7961 7964 7975 7980 7971 796b 7950 7951 7954 7946 7927 HIL LVIEW �955 7944 7953 7948 7930 7917 7940 �� 7901 PAR K 7945 793 7931 7930 �900 7901 N N 7900 PF 901 _n �� :. u°� 7900 v �� Zoni.ng Map Case No. 522-9s Highway 10 -- Moundsview Square Applican.t: Meiryville Farms •°"' p 7833 783 •°�'• 78t 3 7815 781 7827 700fi 7817 �800 7801 780 �778 -.� .,, �-.� 7807 1L� � ^ ; - _ ______ _ __ ..x� _ F. ' . - � � - .. - - ' 1 -,. -. � .. r ._ .... . ,: _ ..-:..'_"" . . ._"' ' �:. � -' __ "_ " .. . . - _:-:' _ _ ""_ _'_.__:_ ' _ ' - - . - . _. -._ . _ . � , . . j. . .� _. -..-.. -.." .. ." - � _ ._ �. ._ "_. . .. . .. . _.. _ _ - .. . - -_-_ . . . - I� a I$ Qi I¢ � I � IQ :UI ' ___ __ " _ __ ' ." '__ . _ "" —'_-- �_. ____-____ '" ---- -- — ----'vs�u4enosvz QyOH 3NtJl �JNOI � --- , '' '°"""""--""""""-"-""'�"'°""""...��.�.�.. '-'�"'.""""""""""'� � _ - — -- � — - --- --' ---- . - � � — � wESt�ul4Wf � � 1 _ � �� tlUitO�NG . � 1 _ I/ � 1 ._ � N —� � � � � ._ . . . � � —_ � _ � . . . _.I C / 1 .— -_'" _ _ � . , i 1 •— —� 'I-' _ I� � ` � � � -� r � '/ � �/ I ; ; = � o � o� �w �� _ _� �� - 1: � � , � , i � ' - �/ ; C ° � �s P �� Q —� ,� -, ��.' � i ' �— a � � 3 � � 3= _� I — �� i: _ . � ` — ' F— � _ —I — , / //, ' � /' / i � r —f ;' / �,�' / / i. 1 {_ AHqL � . � /I�, / � C �Iilll�, � ` � i l— H`i�3iruvw o � I /� ^ o :� .� �� , �, j �� // � 03Lw1 N � 'a_�Y �'� ��' ♦ . / I r_ � ,� � \ � : ! � � 1 � �$G10L m � .0 _ — _ �. \. I� _� / , ' . _ / /�i ; ` .,a` ? � '1 I _ � ,j —¢ � —ti � A `� / o � � iNYbnvI53tl � � � � .5 � / �+ ♦ '1 1 /�/ // _///' H � � y3MOl1 vr�E +" '. .'r — — �V �/ i , `� .' � � / � tr"_- JM1Y� � � — — � �♦ I 'i . / 1 �_ S�SOrve��awl ^ I I� _ �_ — \ �\� / � // \ - , / W � _ ISMO'2 � �F1� _ — � • i, . //�i � ,�i ' LL ; _ nm��' \ � � _ _ \\;�� j j//. ,0 ,/. . ji— i50019 o I — \ !,� .'/. � / SO . / , �,. ; � � � ^_ ` '\ I� ��i O / .� i i � o "' I �- � '.. j � // / �0.� ' � / / �` � I � _ �. ' �� /�� + / j' ,/ � � � ' _ P � � � � ; - o I �r`— � �/��/ �,t•��,,'�. � � � � � 1 I � — m "� J ��. 4QJG �-/ — �� !3 (� — �� . — � — — � � _ , � �` u — � — i t _ i ; — � � _ � � � ¢ � . . s � . — � � N � ■ 11 ' / 11� �� I ��/ , I I I I 1 I • � � � w > � � Z � O i� � _ — i _ = / _ � �i _ `�i J� j / � ; :; i% ;,; '� �� / / . �'' / , % ' / � • W � � Zz W? U� C� � W z W o� a � �0°z � �/� O � �/ L , _�„�� j : �;� \� i � � �i~ . , �/i�; ,'� . , / i � i / �j ,�� /, � , / /.' � /� / // 2 $ W a U N w � a �� \\� IO O O O N O O �D R O O a0 O u7 N� O O O O M O O O O <D O 1� 1� a0 O O C O N � I� O O C O aD O O v O f� O O I� O W N O iff t'7 Cf �D O O1 •- f7 a0 C' �^ � Qf r' M O N N N N � N.- N N 1q ^ C7 NW z �� o� z�� ag� °°��' " � W�W � mwa Qa7 �~w N��y o r}� �� c7 za oc¢N— � W m (n Q�¢ ha- Z� � Q Q Q ��_� O ¢�n� �ZZ FYZ �O�a �-iu Q O y W O O W fn G� V� a i W W W ~ 2u=iZ� N�-? NY�2 74 CL � IT- .� lQL F�a- (ZA m 7� U a m F- m i � N Cf v u) �O f� a0 Of O.- N c'1 V u� �D I� a7 OI O � N '- +^ .� .- �- � � a� .a r N N N I_:... - -- -- —.- February 10, 1998 _ - 1; -- _ ;, f • • a v e r 1S 11� MERRYVILLE FARMS are entitled to run their produce market from July 1, 1997- September 30, 1998. Permission is granted by Paster Enterprises, owners of Moundsview Square Shopping Center and the merchants of Moundsview Square. MERRYVILLE FARMS will place their market/stand in the a�ea highlighted on the enclosed site plan. �� , C�v . � � - y�.��, , Step anie A. Kirchmaier Director of Marketing Paster Enterprises 2227 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55114-1677 612-646-7901 FAX 612-646-1389 �r _ - : . , -- -- ��f'tl �lE'.�� V .._ � �q�,� • . �l��ciVE,'�� ; � : : . ,_ :_: .__ .w � ----=--- - -- - : � -- --- --- . --- _,..�..�� ---- - 470 PiAabury Gentrt 200 South Suth Sa�t Minnc�polis MN 55402 (Gl2) 337-9.�,00 edephvac {C I l) 337-9310 Eu c-mail: attqs@kenncdy-gta•en.com ScoYT J- ��cs nt�rcey st I�m Dited Dial l612) 3�7•9260 c-maii- ari�k�+nedygta+Ka.axn April S, 1998 vIA FACSIMII.E AND REGUL�iR IyIAII. Mr. 1im Ericson i'lanning Asscciate City of i�vunds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, I�N 551I2-1499 �: �'UD, Requirements for Produce SaI�--Mecry�lle Fa�m Mart�et Dear Jim: Per your reques�, I have re�iewed the Municipal Code requirements as to temparary sales of produce withit► thc C�tY• As yvu are aware, the Municipal Code iequires snch produce vendurs to obt�in a CU� fr'om the City. The question you had raised �as Wheiher such a CUP requirement can be imposed against �endors of solely "hdme-gro�m" produce. `I'he 1�iinnesota Attarney General oginions I hava rc�►iewed invvl�ing thi.c issue note that such ��home�grown" sellers cannvt be liceresed' ho�+ever, these opinians also prrn+id� thgt a city may impose reasonable police power regula.tions on the sellers. such as reasonable time, place and m�nner restri�tions of such sales of groduce and other faan goods. Tl�e Attvrney General's opinions nate that whether ar not a restriction is reasonable is a fact question. Keeping ehe above discussion in mind, it appears that the City's CUP retluiremeut Would be. at ]�ast on its face, a valid regulatioNrestriction rather than an in�alid licensing scheme sinCe ihe CUP requirement imposes reasonable time. pla�e, and manrt�r restricdons vn the s�l�s of produce 'See Minn. Const art. 13. § 7(a persan may sell or peddle the products af ihe farm or g arden occupied and cultidated by him Without obtaining a license therefor"): Mi�- Stat § 329.48 ("persoris �+ho may sell or peddle the prohe licetis'tn esCh me set�up for ottter ha kers cultivateci by themsel+�es" �'hile laeing ezempt from t g and pedd]ers). :x7F1:1 � 30 Hti125-4� 1Z9-� ea/ta�d 890-1 �16E1E€+ N�l�VMJ �,103NN�N°wo�� wdEl�ZO 88-80-adV � '�. _-�. �...��-_� -<•_ f�=_......e�" ' � _. -_- . __:� . � .Y-.e.:x �-...r-.-�.�� . ,. - �'�- � �� '- -_-��1 t�:..__.....__- _�- . : _. E=. --_ . _.._ � _="$I �� ----" �nd other fa�m goods. As has been discussed before, removing such temporary produce startci sales from the City's CUP requirements, and inst�d changing svch uses to "permitte� uses" irt districts the City deems appropriate. �ill simplify the City's deaIings �ith such �ntities, I�+ill forward by separaie letter a draft ardinar�ce re�ision Which removes thes� temporarp produce stattd sales from th� City's CUP requircments. Ii� the meantirr�e, please feel free to coniact me With any furthcr qvestiflns or comments you may h�.�+c regarding this matter• Sincerelyo Scott R STR:s cc: N[r_ Robert C. Long, C`ity Attorney Mr. Chuck Whiting. City Administtator � s7R1d1230 IiU125-4'7 1Z9-� sa/e0�d esa-1 aleel6e+ N��d�� da3NN3�mwo�� Wd��:ZO e8—eo—,dV � .. : : � � !��rl.i''_''L _.�.' �- .. .---. � . � � ' -_ . _: . �� . _."'__- ' _ . 1 .. " �'." -_ .'_.-. . .-. . _ . _ .__ � . �.': ....", .: _ � __ G----� _ - - - --=--- `_-- _ �%JN.�A'� -_ 7 MOUNDS V1EW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 543-98 CITY OF MOUNDS V�W COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF NDNNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR SALES AT MOUNDS'VIEW SQUAlt��s REQUESTED BY MERRYVII.LE FARM MARKET; PLANNING CASE NOe 483-95 WHEREAS, Craig Gilb, representing Merryville Farm Market, has applied for a conditional use permit to conduct open and outdoor sales at Moundsview Square Shopping Center; property zoned B-4, legally described as follows: That PaM Lying Northeasterly of the Centerline of State Trunk Highway 10 of NE'/. of NE'/. (Subject to Roads and Highways) rn Section 7, Townshap 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Mound View Zoning Code allows open and outdoor sales in the B-4 Regional Business District with the approval of a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the Planrung Commission has reviewed the following c�ocuments regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Letter from Property Owner e. Letter from City Attorney WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Comrnission makes the following findings that the criteria for approval in Section 1115.04, Subd. 2 have been met: a. Outdoor service, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor azea of the principal use. The shopping center contains 102,035 squaxe feet ofbuilding area. The applicant proposes to occupy 110 square feet of the parking lot, which is less than 1% of the building square footage on the site. This criterion has been met. b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential dish-ict in compliance with Subdivisions 1103.08(1) through (5) of this Title. The parking lot fronting Highway 10 does not abut any residential properties. The nearest residential property is Wildwood Manor, an apartment building for senior citizens, which would be well screened from the proposed use by a stand of trees. � Cr � � : � �� v - _ _ � �F° .. . __._,� .---• - -- — �`- - -- --- -= --- - - _ - - _----=_ - - - - -- _ - .-�__�. _ �_ �. Merryville Fann Market Planning Commission Resolution 543-98 April 15, 1998 Page 2 c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of the Code. The applicant will not have any lighting associated with the produce stand as it will be operating during daylight hours. d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The applicant is proposing to use an existing parking lot which is surfaced with asphalt. This criterion is met. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the provisions from Section 1125.01(1)e of the Zoning Code regarding possible adverse effects of the proposed use and makes the following findings: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The proposal is for a temporary produce stand in the parking lot of an existing shopping center. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as HC--Highway Commercial. The produce stand is an appropriate use within this designation. The shopping center is sunounded by roadways and the a.rea where the use is to be located is 1,000 feet from the nearest residential property. The sale of produce is a typical seasonal business in a community such as Mounds View and it serves a community need. The short duration of the use will result in little, if any, adverse effect upon the surrounding area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: � � The facility shall be allowed to operate from July l, 1998, to September 30, 1998. The hours of operation of the facility shall not exceed 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Signage shall be allowed only as afFxed to the gazebo base and/or canvas roof. Lighting for the use shall be supplied by existing parking lot standards. I _ = - -- .. . . --- - - � E_- . ---- --- :� t . - - --- - ---- - ` . - � - __ _ _ �� , , _� -- -- -- � � Merryville Farm Market Planning Commission Resolution 543-98 April 15, 1998 Page 3 BE TT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staffto forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 15th day of April, 1998. Attest: (Sea1) Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�522-981543-98PC. RES � �. )1 _. % r =: -� I ._ _ _----t r--_. �� -------. �_.. � - _ - -- � -- . -- _ -_-•- - -- _-- -- � -- - - � _ , __ - ., � ,: : _ _ �. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSIQN ACTION Meeting Date: Staff Report by: Planning Case No.: Request: Petitioner: Location: PIN No. Zoning/Land Use: Applicable Regulations: April 15, 1998 James Ericson, Planning Associate 520-98 Conditional Use Permit to allow for an oversized shed Ronald Overton 2824 Woodale Drive 07-3 0-23-31-0042 R-1 / Single Family Residential 1106.03, Subd. lg_ No accessory building other than a garage shall exceed 216 square feet except by CUP. 1106.03, Subd. lh: The combined square footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 25% of the rear yard. 1106.04, Subd.6� The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed 1,264 square feet; if the garage square footage is greater than 1,000 square feet, no other accessory building shall be allowed. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plan Resolution 540-98 Background: The applicant, Ronald Overton, has applied for a conditional use permit to convert an existing, single-car garage to an accessory building, moving it 100 feet back toward the rear of his property located at 2824 Woodale Drive. The dimensions of the existing garage are 14 feet by 22 feet for an area of 308 square In its place, the applicant would be constructing a detached two-car garage. The area of the parcel on which the house and attached garage are situated is 36,595 square feet, or 0.84 acres. The backyard area comprises a majority of the lot at 24,607 square feet, which amounts to over half an acre. The applicant has not yet submitted plans for the two-car garage, but he has been advised about the 1,264 square-foot limit on accessory buildings. The garage to- be-built cannot exceed 956 square feet (1,264 sf less 308 s�. If the garage is to exceed 864 square feet, this CUP will need to be amended. ;� i � ..___= - I __ _:� �_. _'- _- , p Planning Case No. 520-98 Oversized Shed Conditional Use Permit Ronald Overton -- 2824 Woodale Drive April 15, 1998 Page 2 Analysis: Dimensional Reguirements • Shed Setbacks (Front) (Side) (Rear) Percent of Rear Yard Area of all Accessory Buildings CUP requirements• R ir 30 feet 5 feet 5 feet < 25% 5 1,264 sf. Proposed 175 feet 8 feet 73 feet 1.3% 308 sf. , - ��`: � _ f � � -� �� i_ __ � -= _ .._� . � Met? Met Met Met Met Met Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code states that no accessory building other than a garage shall exceed 216 square feet except by conditional use pernvt. With a CUP, the maximum area for all accessory buildings is 1,264 square feet. Section 1125.01 gives a list of criteria that must be satisfied in order for conditional use permits to be approved. These criteria are as follows: Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2824 Woodale Drive, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area The majority of the lots in this area are larger than what is typical for Mounds View. The subject property along with those unmediately adjacent to it are '/4 of an acre or larger, some of which are heavily wooded. While the proposed shed is larger than what is might be standard for this area, the placement of the building 100 feet behind home hides it street view, The shed would be visible only to the two neighboring properties. The home be:und the subject property is screened by the rolling typography and extensive tree cover. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The conversion and relocation of the existing garage will serve to increase the subject property's value without negatively impacting the values of the neigY►boring properties. However, because the garage's stucco e:cterior matches the exterior of the home, staff would stipulate that the shed maintain a consistent and uniform appearance �vith the house until such time that the shed is removed from the property. _. : : . , : � , P - =_-- = -- . . � __, ,�-_— -=-- ---3-- - i �-- - .� , ,-� _�=------- : . `. - -- — --� - �_- - - ---- -- — Planning Case No. 520-98 Oversized Shed Conditional Use Permit Ronald Overton -- 2824 Woodale Drive April I5, 1998 Page 3 The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage is small, even for a single car garage. The applicant would like to park more than one vehicle inside at a time. The structure, however, is in solid repair, and could be retaiuied as a storage shed, which the applicant currently does not have. The applicant currently stores yard and garden equipment outside, under their deck and in the back yard in the open. This proposal satisfies the conditional use permit criteria. Also in Section 1125.01, the Planning Commission is to examine the possible adverse affects of the oversized shed, which are as follows: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The conversion of the garage to a storage shed will not create a greatee impact on e�cisting public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. The increase in runoff from the larger structure is not significant and will not affect the drainage system. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appeazance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The placement of the shed 100 feet behind the home will hide it from street view. The shed will, however, �vill be in full view of the two adjouung properties. Through the CUP, it will be required that the shed maintain the same exterior appearance of the house. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Sheds and out-buildings aze typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of yard and garden equipment . Having this shed will allow for the property owner to store items currently left outside within a secure and protected structure. Staff believes that the adverse affects of this development proposal are minimal and are far out- weighed by the overall benefits. : _ . .- . ; _. } _ _ _ . . ..: � ��- - . � � _ -E � _ : --- - . _ . _ ---- --> _ � -�- -- •--�--- = _. _ __ - _ ---- - .. .. _ . • - . . . , �- ------ � , - �- - — -- - � . __�._. :; Planning Case No. 520-98 Oversized Shed Conditional Use Permit Ronald Overton -- 2824 Woodale Drive April 15, 1998 Page 4 Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 540-98, recommending to the City Council approval of a conditional use permit for Ronald Overton, allowing a 308 square-foot oversized shed at 2824 Woodale Drive, with stipulations. � James Ericson, Planning Associate A:\O VERTON.PC 1 l.. . I ,_ � � ^T� 4 � �l'.�1i �'(: �=} .� A:, f �_r �,p :i�:� .'��I �n Y �t7 � P3fCOC(S��Q COItiI�fUNITY DEVELOPIYIENT DEP�,R'TiY�NT DEVELUPNIENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, i�founds View �LN 55112 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Infornnation - Complete Both Side� of This Form AppGcant Information / Name of Applicant v��, � ,�i�C l� ^� Telephone ,8G— �� Address o�� L� � Fax � „J /j j In�reat iw Property (check appropriate box) �� Owner of Properry � Lessee, Operator, Manager a Other (explain) � Contract for Deed Owner � Agreetnent co Purchase Applicants mu9t provide evidence of interest in property at the time of appiication, and if you are aot the owner of the pro�erty, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving coosent to the t"�ling of this applicatioo. The property owner must sign this appGcation for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or Geueral Location Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Cuireat Zoning ��a � �� d�� 1�� -- ..�. /1 N��cNU0�1.� �aZr� �.o7G !✓ o�,3v.� 3/00�/�� _ .., _ . Type of Application o Comprehensive Plan Amendmenc o Rezoning � Major Subdivision a Minor Subdivision � Planned Unit Devefopment (PUp) � PUD Amendment -g Conditional Use Permi[ ❑ Variance o Code Appeai a Develop Review/Site Plan ❑ Wedand Alteration Permit � Weciand But%r Pernut a Floodp(ain Pernut o Other �250 5250/acre; min �Z50 max S 1500 �250 + �250 deposit* �200 Refer to re2on.ing fees 53�0 R-1, R-2,�75), all others $Z50 R- I; R-2 � 100 all others �250 SI00 � 12�/acre; min $ I 25 max �750 R-1, R-2 � I50; all orhers �200• R-1, R•2 525; alI othecs � f 00 �200 *Deposirs shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and stat�or consultanc [ime spene in the review, -ese:sch or preparacion of matenals assoe;aated with this application. The applicant sha(1 be responsible for all reasonable mcutred costs in zxcess of th� initial de�osit amount. Any portion of the deposi[ not spenc or �ncutnbered shall be retunded to the applicant within thuty (30) days ader consideration ot �he application is compieted Please complete the reveroe aide of this applicatione r � � City of �(ounds View, N1i�f Develo ment ;� lication Pa e ? Present Use of Properry a UndevelopedNacant � Duplex/I'wo Family Dwelling o $usiness/Commercial Establishment o Other (e;cplain) Property Classification Description of Proposal � Abstract � ❑ ❑ 0 Single Family Dwelling Multi-family Dwelling Industrial Establistunent Torrens ��- y� /DO � So � BY MY (OUR) SIG�IATURE UN THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY I.�i IOVJLEDGE, THE INF'pRMATIUN PROViDED IS TRLTE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant O Name of Applicant (typed/printed) �,vA�.D �Ov �o�„ � � Signature ofProperty Owner Name of Properry Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner _—,�S a w+. P _ �- �. ._:. � 8 �� o o ��.�� T" _�1�v n d.t �1� e�, �2I� S`S�/ Z- 756-68Go ***********.»***:*»*****»****»****»****.*:***»*�.*****�.*************.*******�*****».**�********** FO OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Su6mittal �-� U- G� � Date of Acceptance Assigned [o: Planning Case No. _ �S� c� �� 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fc:es Paid: Account � Check � Receipt � Applicaaon: � � S /OC - 3 �l o -r9 (�� 8a �v Park Dedicacion: D�posits: Other: Tocal �1:1DAT,a\GROG'PS1C01�iD E V\FOR1�(S�D E Vr1pp.FOR 1/98 �. � _�^ t ( � � I I 73� � l I � � i �—_ � � � Existi ILoca io i � � i I 100' Site Plan for 2824 Woodale D��'-�e � � � � .�.. � �, � �.. � ..�. �,;-� ._ _ ( \\.�_ ' Lot size 126.19' X 290' ( i � o street � 1 � Exis�ing garage set-back I to side property line 6'6" i � I � � ng ( � n l � � , � � t I I I' I I I I 1 I I ' I I I I i I I � Proposed location I � � I I ( ' Set-back to side property line I � at proposed location 8' � � I � 73' � I I I � I l I I----� -----re.�_,___,.�J I I rn n .^..., •.. ^ ^ ... .,. — ^ rn n Y , � . n n n r�i ��SO w �°i., 7SOO N N N N I BRONSON DRNE I � � � N 10 � � I M n n o p 7474 7�89 �+ � 7490 7485 m �� 7457 7465 7474 7471 747 li 7462 454 745 I7447 74qg 7445 — 7�2 7451 �. 7425 �430 74J5 7434 w 7415 > I I p 7�9 7415 �40 7405 7412 I . Z , 7405 I' 7385 7380 a 7381 7382 7395 -� I I C� 7375 735a � 7365 7360 7375 � 7365 �z �y 32 7347 7373 �� 32 327 W a N � 325 I I a n c"�v � o 0 33 n N � o 0 317 a� � M °n r4i n M r°� N N N N N 315 m m � tF M N � O `� � h N O O � O O O O O � Of � � � � � � �'7 17 M PI �"1 N ry N N N N cy N � _— I:� 7234 7237 LL. ,'� 7226 7225 �'• 7200 7215 � 7788 7191 I� �i�z 5 :� 7750 7540 52 7532 7530 7522 5�� o �o 49 N N N BRONSON v m c� o �q�,q N N ��Z r N 7440 � 7408 74vu1 �sa.E 7338 m 7310 N t0 aD O N N �t _ �� R-4 ►�is � O � 0 rn o� �� v � � 5. 5 5 ^ ° ° � � N ^ o o �j 51 516 5218 522t � I1�. � Q � M M Ol Q� �� N N N tV N N OS�GGS�G �JZ�Z SZ' S :: o� woOOAL.E s, s s, s Y szos sz, , m � N ♦ N Y �D 00 Q 5 : � o °�' °�' °�' � �� 709 � m w m° 709 57 62 5167 O 5205 N� M M N N �+ 94 � N N N N W S2OO SZO� 5 0 7092 � r � 708 DAL DR 5�,� 5 "� p 7 0 J 070 5143 5t � 514 • 7082 7095 � 707 5141 5 O 0 7072 7069 707 7063 R�2 5139 5132 5133 5 7054 O60 M N � � m 5133 5124 5125 p 5 7057 7D � � m . �oaa �oa4 N 0 CREST 12 siis s�n � s � 704 WOODCREST �R w s� i9 Z �o2s 5 �o2a � o N,� � J PARK N 5113 � 5108 5109 � 5 ' 7OOB 702 � � OOO N N N N N N PF N SiO% � S�OO 5101 N S 7O1 N N � ( 6986 69 1 2940 0 0 5092 509 � 509 N 5092 5� 6970 Z gg� Zg3Z `�' �' 96 5086 508 � 5086 508 5086 508 Si Q 6960 508 fn �� 508 507 5080 507 5080 507 St ' 6952 � 6953 N m� 695 6951 507 5071 507 5071 507 5i � �`� 6940 5066 506 � 5066 506 506 50fi 5 6942 a- 6939 `� 69a 6945 � 6928 6929 692 5060 5059 � 5060 505 SO6 505 Si � � �= o O1 ^ "� "� ^ � 5054 5053 O 50 5053 505 505 5� 0 6900 N o rn a, a, o � a r� N _ o o � 504 � N N N N (�Y N N (�V N N 5046 504rJ 5�4 rJ�4rJ �J�4 4 rJl Zoning Map Planning Case 520-98 Applicant: Ronald Overton Location: 2824 Woodale Drive ��\� E < ;. - �� ` - � . _., _____ __ ___ -� ;. _ - __ . _=- _ _ _ _; , _ _ l.. - __..�__�__-- -=-- _-- ._- -- – --_ - r -- -- = - --_ - -_-_ - . _._„ _ .:�:_—z--- -- MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 540-98 CITY OF MOUNDS V1EW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERSIZED STORAGE SHED FOR RONALD OVERTON, 2824 WOODALE DRIVE; MOUNDS V�W PLANNING CASE NO. 520-98 WHEREAS, Ronald Overton has applied for a conditional use permit to convert an e�sting 308 square-foot garage into a back yard storage shed on property located at 2824 Woodale Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family Residsntial, legally described as followed: LOT 93 KNOLLWOOD PARK ADDITION, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,264 square feet of garage/accessory building on one lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendat�on, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. l.e.: Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this properiy, 2824 Woodale Drive, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The Geogaphical Area Involved. The Character of the Surrounding Area The majority of the lots in this area are larger than what is rypical for Mounds View. The subject , _ _ L _ � - . °- ; . , -;_ ' � :3 f _ - - ---- - , --=-_ =- - --= --- = = ---; " -- - _ _ �' r � — - - --- - - -- _-- � - - i _ - - -�- ----� --� -� Planning Commission Resolution 540-98 April 15, 1998 Page 2 property along with those immediately adjacent to it are '/, of an acre or larger, some of which are heavily wooded. While the proposed shed is larger than what is might be standard for this area, the placement of the building 100 feet behind home hides it street view. The shed would be visible only to the two neighboring properties. The home behind the subject properly is screened by the rolling typography and extensive tree cover. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The conversion and relocation of the existing garage will serve to increase the subject property's value without negatively impacting the values of the neighboring properties. However, because the garage's stucco exterior matches the exterior of the home, staff would stipulate that the shed maintain a consistent and uniform appearance with the house until such time that the shed is removed from the property. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage is small, even for a single car garage. The applicant would like to pazk more than one vehicle inside at a time. The siructure, however, is in solid repair, and could be retained as a storage shed, which the applicant currently does not have. The applicant currently stores yard and garden equipment outside, under their deck and in the back yard in the open. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use pernut, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The conversion of the garage to a storage shed will not create a greater impact on eYisting public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. The increase in runoff from the larger structure is not significant and will not affect the drainage system. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening &om adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that e;cisting homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The siructure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The placement of the shed 100 feet behind the home will hide it from street view. The shed will, ho�vever, will be in full vie�v of the rivo adjoinir,g properties. Through the CUP, it will be required that the shed maintain the same exterior appearance of the house. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the Ciry and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. !� � , . , -_ _ _ . ,� � .� � _ _ = _ __. _ . � _ : _ = --- �-- - - - --- Planning Commission Resolution 540-98 April 15, 1998 Page 3 Sheds and out-buildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of yard and garden equipment . Having tlus shed will allow for the property owner to store items currently left outside within a secure and protected sixucture. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The shed shall be maintained into the future so as to provide a uniform and consistent building appearance with the existing house. The shed shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. 4. No other sheds or accessory buildings, other than the proposed garage, shall be allowed on this lot. There shall be no vehicle access to this shed, nor shall any vehicle be stored within said structure. 6. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City to ensure a high quality of workmanship and timely completion of the relocation. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staffto forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 15th day of April, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�520-98�540-98PC. RES � . � ,_ '_ __ ... ` ._J:. ,..'__ � l:_�.LL_,.�....� , . ..., . . . . . . .. . -. . �'" .`__ � . ' _. __ __-.. . . REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTI�N Meeting Date: Stati Report by: Planning Case No. Request: Applicant: Address: PIN #: Zoning/I.and Use: Lot Size: Applicable Regulations: April 15, 1998 James Ericson, Planning Associate 518-98 Minor Subdivision (Lot Split) Charles and Shirle Schultz 7581 Spring Lake Road 07-30-23-22-0006 R-1, Single Family Residential 37,669 sf (.84 acres) • Surveyor's Certificate: Section 1202.01, Subd. 3b requires that the applicant provide a certificate of survey prepared by a Minnesota registered land surveyor. � Minimum Lot Size and Widths: Section 1104.02, Subd. 2b, as amended by Ordinance 590, sets the minimum interior lot size at 11,000 square feet. The minimum width for interior lots is 75 feet. � • Provision of Easements: Section 1203.04 requires that drainage and utility easements be provided in the event of property subdivi,ions. Park Dedication Fee: Section 1204.02 requires that a park dedication fee be paid in an amount equivalent to five percent (5%) of the land value of the property to be subdivided. Attachments: Planning Application ' Zoning Map Drainage and Utility Easement Document Certificate and Plat of Survey (Separate Attachment) Resolution No. 539-98 Background: The applicant, Charles and Shirle Schultz, is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to create two lots from their property located at 7581 Spring Lake Road. The City's subdivision regulations allow for approval of a surveyor's certificate in these situations. A copy of the surveyor's certificate showing the proposed lot split is attached. This property is a double-wide lot that fronts the east side of Spring Lake Road, just south of Spring Lake. The applicant's home sits on the southern portion of the lot. The applicant proposes to split off 85 feet, leaving 80 feet for the existing home. All applicable setbacks would be maintained under this configuration. � � � Y, _ _ k . . _ r _�—_ -_ _ = _ –� �= -- : _ . . =: . _: - _ _- � � ,_- - -- - Schultz Minor Subdivision 7581 Spring Lake Road Planning Case No. 518-98 April 15, 1998 Page 2 Issues: The proposed legal descriptions and certificate of survey have been reviewed by the City's Engineering Technician, who finds them in compliance with City standards in the proper form for recording. Staff has sent a copy of the certificate of survey to the City Attorney for his comments and to arrange for the drafting of an easement document to convey the drainage and utility easements shown on the survey. The only other issue that exists with regard to this request is the park dedication requirement as stated in Section 1204.02 of the Municipal Code. It states that for all subdivisions of less than one acre, a five percent (5%) park dedication fee is required to be paid before the subdivision can be approved. According to the Ramsey County assessor's records, this property is valued at $39,700. Five percent of that would amount to $1,985. Subdivision 3 of this Section, however, allows for the exclusion of the land under the existing home remaining after the subdivision. With this exclusion, the dedication requirement would be reduced to $1,032. This item was to be heard by the Mounds View Parks and Recreation Commission at their last meeting on March 26, 1998, but the meeting was canceled due to a lack of quorum. While the Commission is on record as requiring the full amount of any park dedication fee, since this is the first minor subdivision under the new fee requirements, stafffelt that a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission would be appropriate. Their next meeting will be April 23, 1998, at which time they will make a recommendation regarding this request. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 539-98, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of this minor subdivision subject to stipulations. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�518-98�SCHULTZ.PC 1 _ ;.� _ t>, : -_;, _. _ . - - = - _ -,, - � ----- - ->��' _ _- . , :.- __ , =- ,_: , .__ - _- - , __ _ _ � -- _ _ - � � — ` � � J �ae� 0 7830 7835 7890 7887 "� 7820 7825 7880 7879 F 781 � 7815 7870 7865 � 780 7860 7851 ro ^°m 7850 � 7841 a N ,:::::':: ;;;::� ::::::::::: :..::�:•: .:::... 783 7821 �,,' - E•: �.,. ..4�µ..•^. , �,�� F.. t> •'•:.C:.;;;'. �i:�� :� - .,.�..' � ' . �� ..-?.�,`• }.,.�C.);;:�:'.-.i-.i:))).-� � :,;ii:��--�.::' ".�i;'i{:?;.�.:.`?;: _ ::�::�"�.:�:::�:::::;::�..�:.:�:;�;� .. . 1�;� .......... : _ :::;;..C�;::.:;.`:.�, _:• :::.:.:.:.:.:.;.:;' / •'(•:•: �: •::•:f:;�.�.:: ...............::.:.. :: .............. .. �• N 79 o v - i ,.., .. � , i m HILL �si N w ti�� 7880 7861 N � M o 7860 7835 m N� B—� 7850 7821 B ,�'�^ �� ti rn m �ro 80 7801 N N N 7791 �1a �, � 3 R-4 ,�ti ao 778 7781 7750 `L^ _p, 7768 7769 /�g �5 7758 7759 7770 7748 7749 776B 7767 7765 773 7739 7729 7755 772 � 7729 772 7723 J � 771 p 7719 771 7715 N 7710 Y 77� �10 7711 _ _ ..... - .............. .......... 7686 7685 i I r��i N fO o Q 767 � . "' "' � �' � 7655 I • 763 7633 I I 762 7629 761 �i.,� 7611 7627 �>_ �so Ip 7581 758 7581 II7555 7564 7565 � 7555 ' 7545 7546 I � 7545 ( I 7525 W � rn � ' . M O O „o� %SO BRONSON ( f aD O (v v c0 II 7474 7489 O M p O O 3 7465 �C.� 7457 �� asz II 7447 74 48 7445 {. 7425 7430 �435 II 7415 740 7405 _i m � N 76BO Q 7ggg 7670 7665 7647 7664 7629 19 85 79 � v m N 769 �685 7670 7663 7660 76� 7653 7634 7635 7620 7600 7601 7594 7575 �sea 75s z 7565 �s�z g w 7555 7690 %68 768 R-2 / JJG J 755 7545 7560 � 7550 � Y 7515 545 7542 I� p� � M 7540 N 7500 m � N N 52 7532 DRIVE 7530 7522 rn rn 7490 7485 � 501 ^ 49 N 7474 7471 747 � N BRONSON 454 7451 7456 N o ' 7452 ao N 7444 W �4,5 ��z r 7434 � N 0 7409 74-40 � 7412 7408 - 7405 Zoning Map Planning Case 518-98 Applicant: Charles Schultz Location: 7581 Spring Lake Road SILVER VIEW PARK �L�� ,�. (740 __ l , . . . - - • -.. I� � . _ _ : __ . _ ___ :..._ n �: _ :- � _ _ _ _ � � � - ---- -- �: _ .. _ - ' - - -_� . _ ... � .. . . . - - - ---- PERMANENT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EA5ENlENT GRANT THIS EASEMENT GRANT IS MADE THIS day of , 1998, between CHARLES G. SCHULTZ AND SHIRLEY SCHULTZ, husband and wife, oi 7581 Spring Lake Road, Mounds View, Minnesota 55112, Grantor (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), and CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, Grantee, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, having its principal office located at 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 (hereinafter referred to as "City"). 1. Consideration and Descriptiono In consideration of the sum of $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged, Grantor hereby grants, sells, and conveys to City, its successors and assigns, a permanent drainage and utility easement for the purpose of constructing, laying, operating, inspecting, maintaining, altering, replacing, repairing and putting into operation all necessary public utilities, including but not limited to water and sewer, storm sewer and drainage, pipes, lines and facilities and appurtenances of said City, in, upon, over and acrass the following described real estate owned by the Grantor situated in the County of Ramsey which is described herein as the Easement Tract. The Easement Tract is legally described on Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. Term of Easement. The easement rights granted herein shall be possessed and enjoyed by the City, its successors and assigns, in perpetuity. 3. Inqress, EQress, and Maintenance. The City, its employees, contractors, and representatives shall have the right of ingress and egress to and from the Easement Tract for the purpose of constructing, laying, operating, inspecting, maintaining, altering, replacing, repairing and putting into opera�ion all necessary public utilities, including but not limited to water and sewer, storm sewer and drainage, pipes, lines and facilities and appurtenances of said City. Such ingress and egress shall be limited to the Easement and to existing public roads, if any, on the premises. 4. Riahts and Restrictions of Grantor. Grantor shall have the right to full use and enjoyment of the Easement Tract except for such use as may interfere with the exercise by the City of the rights granted herein. Grantor shall not construct or permit to be constructed any house, structure, or obstruction on or over or interfering with the construction, maintenance, repair, or other operation of any utility lines, drainage, facilities or appurtenances constructed or permitted pursuant to this instrument. Grantor further agrees that it will not materially change the SJR141166 MU210-5 1 - , : � _ � _ � ;, �:. . _ _ �: - �_-- = - --- , � .,.__ �. . _ ground elevation above such utility lines, facilities or appurtenances, or impede the drainage over or across the Easemen� Tract, without the prior written consent of the City. 5. Covenant of Ownership. Grantor covenants that it is the owner of the Easement Tract and has the right, title, and capacity to grant the Easements granted herein. 6. Effect Upon Subsequent Parties. This Easement Grant shall be binding upon and accrue to the benefit of the heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.] ;� � `_ ; SJR141166 MU210-5 2 __ - :, c _ , : � . , _ F r .,,� _ _ , - _ _ �' '�-=---- - .. � - , �i :- . - -- --_=- - - - --_-- - --- ----- . _ �. _ .,._=_---- __ -�_.-«.. __, ____ - -_ _ _ G IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused this Easement Grant to be duly executed in its name and behalf as of the day and year first above written. CH�IRLES G. SCHULTZ SHIRLEY SCHULTZ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1998, by CHARLES G. SCHULTZ and SHIRLEY SCHULTZ, husband and wife, respectively. Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (SJR) 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 SJR141166 3 MU210-5 � _ - — � -- - --------- '� - �. _-_L --=- �I `_ .. � �—�--- -- - :, :- = 4 i :. _�� --__�; EXHIBIT A Le al Descri tion of Easement [Easement Tract] The South 80.00 feet of Lot 41, SPRING LAKE PARK KNOLLS, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Reserving and subject to easements for drainage and utility purposes being 10.00 feet in width and adjacent to the east and west lines thereof. And reserving and subject to easements for drainage and utility purposes being 5.00 feet in width and adjacent to the north and south lines thereof. SJR141166 4 MU210-5 .i : ; _ _ _ _ ______ _ �� ___ _ ___ - _ _ MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMNIISSION RESOLUTION NO. 539-98 CITY OF MOUNDS V�W COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMNIENDING APPROVAL OF A 1VIINOR SUBDIVISION FOR CHARLES AND SffiItLE SCHULTZ, 7581 SPRING LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS V�W PLANNING CASE NO. 518-98 Wi-�REAS, Charles and Shirle Schultz have requested approval for a minor subdivision dividing their property located at 7581 Spring Lake Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: Lot 41, Spring Lake Park gnolls, Ramsey County WHEREAS, the two lots created by this minor subdivision, Lot A(the southern half with the existing home) and Lot B(the northern hal� would be legally described as follows: Lot A: The South 80. 00 Feet of Lot 41, Spring Lake Park Knolls, Ramsey County Lot B: That Part of Lot 41, Spring Lake Park Snolls, Ramsey County, Lying North of the South 80. 00 Feet Thereof. WI�REAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1201, 1202, 1104 and 1204 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate and Plat of Survey for the above described property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recomnnends approval of the minor subdivision request made by Charles and Shirle Schultz, 7581 Spring Lake Road, contingent upon the following: The applicant shall make payment of a park dedica�tion fee in an amount specified by the City Council according to the requirements in Section 1204.02. 2. The applicant shall record the City Council resolution of approval, the Certificate of Survey and the drainage and utility easement document with Ramsey County within sixty (60) days of final adoption, and present proof of such recording to the City of Mounds View, or this approval shall be null and void. ��= i l� � _ � 1��.� ---- --_ ._�.: E�---- _ -- - � =-- -- -.�. -.-- :_ � �:_ .._,- _ --- - ( ----_--- '-----� �, . ,j ' , . 7581 Spring Lake Road Minor Subdivision Resolution No. 539-98 April 15, 1998 Page 2 BE IT FURT'HER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 15th day of April, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIDE VCASESl518-981539-98PC.RES ( ' H i = -- :: �i k�� _ � �- _ � _-= _ - i�_. -�:-.� -:_..- = - -�-- -� --- _�.- - • .�.. `" — -- _ _ r . _< � �.__- --=- - = _ - ----------- •_ 7581 Spring Lake Road Minor Subdivision Resolution No. 539-98 April 15, 1998 Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 15th day of April, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASESl518-98\539-98PC.RES _ _ .� ::� � i ; , k __ . - - - - -- : - � - - _ _-__ ��_ - _� `-- ___--- __ - ' r _ _ ' � -- � - _- - - - - �-. REQUEST FOR PLANI�IING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting I)ate: Staff Report by: Planning Case No.: Request: Petitioner: Location: PIN No. Zoning/Land Use: Applicable Regulations: April 15, 1998 James Ericson, Plunning Associate 516-98 Conditional Use Pernut to allow for a 1,246 square-foot garage Thomas Lammi 7858 Long Lake Road 06-30-23-44-0065 R-1 / Single Family Residential 1106.03�S��bd. ld: No garage shall exceed 864 square feet except by CUP. 1106.03�Subd. lh: The combined square footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 25% of the rear yard. 1106.04, Subd.6: The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed 1,264 square feet; if the garage square footage is greater than 1,000 square feet, no other accessory building shall be allowed, the garage width cannot exceed 35 feet nor allow for more than three vehicle access. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plan Resolution 541-98 Background: The applicant, Thomas Lammi, has applied for a conditional use pernut to construct a 616 square- foot garage addition to his house located at 7858 Long Lake Road. The dimensions of the existing garage are 21 feet by 30 feet (630 square feet) with access for two vehicles. The proposed garage addition of 616 square feet would attach seamlessly to the rear of the garage and house, tying into the eausting roof line, siding, and soffits. The area of the parcel on which the house and attached garage are situated is 12,780 square feet, or 0.29 acres. The backyard area comprises 4,500 square feet, which amounts to 35% of the lot. Because backyard accessory buildings cannot exceed 25 percent of a backyard's area, the garage addition cannot exceed 1,125 square feet. The proposed addition would take up 12.7 percent of the backyard. `� � : _ �, I j _ - - �� ! � l � i _? "____. � �. _ '_ .. - _ . � ��. . _ u_=.-: _ � . , __�_— --.' . - . f . .:�. _ _. . cz _ _.___ _ ' ' .. _ _ A +f_—C - '_. " ' _ _. '__ "' _ __ _ � �..�: I Planning Case No. 516-98 Oversized Garage Conditional Use Permit Thomas Lanuni -- 7858 Long Lake Road April 15, 1998 Page 2 Analysis: Dimensional Rec�uirements• Garage Setbacks (Front) (Side) (Rear) Percent of Rear Yard Garage Width Area of all Accessory Buildings: CUP rec�uirements: R ir 3 0 feet 10 feet 10 feet < 25% S 35 feet s 1,264 Sq. ft Proposed 30 feet 10 feet 22 feet 12.7°�0 22 feet 1,246 Sq. ft Met/Not Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code states that no garage shall exceed 864 square feet except by conditional use permit. With a CUP, the maximum area for a garage is 1,264 square feet. The garage area proposed by the applicant, at 1,246 square feet, meets this requirement. Section 1125.01 gives a list of criteria that must be satisfied in order for conditional use permits to be approved. These criteria are as follows: 2. 4. 3 Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 7858 Long Lake Road, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The Geogaphical Area Involved. The Character of the Surrounding Area The majority of the lots in this area are lazger than the subject property although many of the lots across Long Lake Road are smaller pazcels. While the proposed garage is larger than what is typical for this area, the placement of the garage addition behind the home hides it from Long Lake Road. The garage would be visible only to the three adjoining properties. Staff has spoken to two of the three neighboring property owners, who do not foresee a problem with the addition. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. This addition will serve to increase the subject properly's value without negatively impacting the values of the neighboring properties. � � � = . � � � - - ' - :. ,��.z -_.�_ - -=- __ -- -- . . . ._ _. .. == --__ . Planning Case No. 516-98 Oversized Garage Conditional Use Pernut Thomas Lammi -- 7858 Long Lake Road April 1 S, 1998 Page 3 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The applicant has indicated that they own antique and classic vehicles that are currently parked in different locations across the metro area. With the applicant's everyday-use vehicles there is no room in the garage or driveway for the other vehicles owned by the applicant. The size requested is the minirnum needed to satisfy the applicant's needs. This proposal satisfies the conditional use pernut criteria. Also in Section 1125.01, the Planning Commission is to examine the possible adverse affects of the oversized garage, which are as follows: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazazds or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The construction of an oversized garage will not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it create an increase in tr�c on adjacent streets. The increase in runoff from the larger structure is not significant and will not affect the drainage system. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The stcucture and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The placement of the garage addition so that the structure is hidden from street view will provide adequate screening, and will preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. The gazage addition, will however, be in fiill view of the three adjoining properties. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conf]ict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for storage of vehicles and other equipment. Having this garage will allow for the property owner to store his collectable vehicles upon his own properiy. Staff believes that the adverse ai�ects of this development proposal are minimal and are far out- weighed by the overall benefits. _ ;N Planning Case No. 516-98 Oversized Garage Conditional Use Permit Thomas Lammi -- 7858 Long Lake Road April 15, 1998 Page 4 Recommendation: { L . .._. __ "_ _`_ _ �. _-__.�� Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 541-98, recommending to the City Council approval of a conditional use permit for Thomas Lammi, allowing a 1,246 square-foot oversized garage at 7858 Long Lake Road, with stipulations. J�.�. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\516-98\I,AMIvIICUP.PC 1 -1 l - , :�� .� ,� ��. , : li:�i.: �`�;:�C. A A:.��.n- •,, °, :r;'; EsL:: �o��t! ' Partn��'�Q� _ ` _. - _ _ CO DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN°T DEVELOPMENT APPLICATTOl�T 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 5511� 612-717-4020 612-784-34�2 - F� P(ease Type or Print Infocmation - Complete Both Sidea of Thi� Fonm Applicaut Informatioo � NameofApplicant Telephone %�(� �l 3 � Address � g 58 ,�,g�.q ;�,� �r^e ��C Fax /j%duu�s �/i.l?� %`'lat% 5�!/Z, Intereat in Property (check appropriate box) �,' Owner of Properry ❑ Con�ract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager � Agreement [o Purchase � Other (explain) ApQlicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time ot application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving conaeat to the filing of thi� applicatian. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or Gcneral Location Legal Description T Property Identifieation # (P1N � # of Acres ��. '..:: _ 7�Sg �., � a-�� ,��? � �,, s � rK� ,C o�- � ��1��/!� � - ...._f��-3�-�3 --y'�-°oa��' _ CurrentZoning �s.,jJ.�,t,y..� � Type of Application . - ❑ Comprehensive Plan Ainendment a Rezoning ❑ Major Subd'avision a Minor Subdivision O Planned Unit Development (PUD) a PUD Amendmeat J� Conditiona( Use Permit . ��p SI. ariance ❑ Code Appeai � 0 Develop Review/Sita Plan ❑ Wedand Alteration Permic a Wetland But%r Petmie ❑ Floodplain Pe�mit o Other 5250 � $250/acre; min �250 max � I S00 $Z50 + $2S0 deposit* �200 Refer to rezoning fees $�50 R-1, -2 $7 � others �250 R-1, R- 0 others $250 $100 $125/acre; min $125 max $750 � R- l, R-2 S 150; all others �200 R- I 9 R-2 �25; all others $100 5200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materiais and staff or consultane time spent in the review, research or preparation of ma[enals associated with this application. The appGcant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurCed costs in z:ccess ot the initial deposit amounL Any portion of the deposit noe a-pent or encumbered shall be refunded to che appiicant within thirty (30) ciays atter considerarion ot the application is compieced. Pterse complete the rever�e aide of this aQplication. �L (�(�,�'�-•�,1� �l. h. .�.i 3 n - M • _ __ __ ____ _ . E . - — _� �{r: City of 1�Iounds View, MN Devela ment A lication Pa e 2 Present Use of Property o UndevefopedNacant � Single Family Dwelling � Duple�c/'I'wo Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling � Business/Commercial Establistunent ❑ Industrial Establishment � Other (explain) Property Classification Description ofProposal � Abs[ract �( Torrens � 1��./� .szc��9tivNra� � o �Q�sc,� � , ll,o,_ a BY MY (OUR) SIGNATLTI2E ON THIS APPT.ICATION,TBfZ1��Y I�f�WI.EDGE, TF-� II�IFpRMqTIUN PROVIDED IS ANp � Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Si�ature ofProperty pwner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) ataar� of o�� Phone Number of Owner �E THAT, TO TI-iE BEST OF MY TE. �— 7 ,` � _ — i� r a n� p� �C.. /4 M� w. , ��Sg .:':��.s ° � � � � ,� . � . , - ./ylo��s �i�.�4i ly,v' �%�o o+-� 3�ir � �F s �M �M +h �k * �M a ri * �h �k �t �M * �► # �M # �R �M �h �k # �k �h �k +M �k �InF �h � �luk s �k �k * �It # * a a s � s �R # �F �h * �M �k �t s ri s s a it s �M �k �M �M * �k s �Inh # �k �h �M �h �k �k �F �t �k �F �F �k �F �k �t �IuF �k �k �F �It �k �It FOR OFFICE USE OIYLY Date of Submittal �_� 7_ c� � Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. 60-day Limit I20-dav limit Applicaaon: Park Dedication: Dcposits: Other: Total Fees Paid: � Account � /?S�o O Check � R eln� � � _�.� � ,�D � N:�D ATA1G RO UPS1C O M D E V lF0 Rl�f SlD E V AP P. FO R 1/98 _ . . . ..._: . i. .. . . _.-. . - _ . ..._ . . .. . . . :__._____. . . ._. . ___ . __ nuss ou4u du�o ��- �' "" 8035 8022 8019 8030 8a11 8000 8021 8011 8000 8001 8010 7981 7990 a 7989 7996 � 7993 7990 7977 � 7980 � 7985 7970 69 7980 7979 7960 7961 7964 7975 7965 7969 7966 7g50 7951 7954 7959 7955 �s4s 7946 7927 H I LLVI EW 7935 7930 7917 79� 7945 � � � �, � �sot PAR ' N LV N%9�� %9�� N N%9QQ � ROAO co cn < 7891 N N 7880 7895 N N 7890 78 N N 7864 86 � 7885 7866 7867 7870 7 9 785 7853 7860 7$ 7852 W 78�� 7854 7851 Y 7841 �as3 �a42 �eso �s �84s g 7841 7840 78 7830 � 784a 7835 7851 0 7815 817 7820 � 7815 779� 7809 �8 781 � � 78Q5 7780 7801 `�i , � 7809 7770 3 7801 7760 7797 7800 � R-4 �eoi W ��5� nso ��e� �,� ^ 7767 �760 � 7741 7740 7767 h 'b�O � 7761 7750 7731 7730 7753 7755 7730 7721 7720 6�y� 7745 7710 7711 8024 g027 801 ; 7 8000 80a5 �� _ � 7984 7989 7986 7 7 7980 7971 7968 ; 7 7944 7953 7948 i 793 7931 7930 N %9OO N N N N N :: � � 8g 7889 788 � � � P� • N N N N N I _. �" r�is � ° �°� � _ noo N � ° R-2 r� r] o� u� � r� .- rn n u� ��u1Oi� �� 2553 NCVNN � NNNNN �51 N 2549 2547 2545 8-4 zs4� 2539 2537 -�-.? m 0 7695 N �se� R B-3 �Tti Zoning Map Planning Case 516-98 Applicant: Thomas Lammi Location: 7858 Long Lake Road v N � N 7878 7875 786 7869 7860 � 7870 7861 785 p 7857 785 � 7836 3 � 7845 784 7 g �e4� 7a 7837 783 w ; �82a � 7833 783 782 Q 7eo 3 �a�5 781 7827 7817 7800 7801 780 ��8 7807 7749 775 7768 7739 77� 7751 7748 7729 773 �41 774 � 7728 7719 772 Q T131773 �� o »as ni o ��2i nz m ° N ��o � ��o ��o :� i - CO � � � �n � ,� N � c � v w a v : N N N N N N � 766 �3 766 — R-4 7655 i oc c� 7645 � � �� 7 W � �n � �`i.° �� 763 761 � �G O � �p � N d' "t � N N N i PF - � ��\� ; _- � -- - - l:_ _ �r y_ -� -,' ::._:i .: _ -- `= � . �. ._ _ a ... . . ""_"-.._. "__. ..'. ._. . _�. ._ - - -:-. - .� .... .. Y _—� -._ � HILLVIEW ROAD � � --- 232.00 - - � 90 0 � �42 0 `� 33 I � � .7 � \�o i o., � i p' I 0°' I �0� �l I �I zl W I � W I � � CI Q W I h + rI I � J �I � I ( \ I r \�� I Z ml �� I W � W � a c� I I w a 2 Q I� o� i42 �25 � � �' I iv'cr DR�w� To 5�,� r.�' I � � --- -- IW � I r 0 I ��5� I a I ¢ o �01�.14 o � � i �� 3 i � �.o�D r�� - T--- — — — — — — J I ° � — _..._ _._.. — ` � OpAtNGGE 8 UTi�ITY EASEMENT � - 90 0 142.04 � DAAiNOG 6 UTILITT EASEMENT O -- ------ - ---- ----- -�._ _, � /� �l I , i � �. i 0 ti • . '��2&� O+� Z 2 K�, g 4 C��1,��16� � aDr rfoN ° 0 rn � I "�' kf -_ - '' r ° - �� . _ � j= - - --- . _ _ . - - — -_ - �_ _ _:. � _6v - --- -_— -- _ _` _ -- -------- �- - - - -- - — - --- - - � � MOUNDS V�W PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 541-98 CTTY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STAT`E OF NIINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OVERSIZED GARAGE FOR THOMAS LANIlVII, 7858 LONG LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 516-98 WHEREAS, Thomas Lammi has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 616 square foot addition to his garage 630 square-foot garage on property located at 7858 Long Lake Road, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: LOT 3 BLOCK l, T. Y. CONSTRUCTION, ING ADDN, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, The Ivlounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use pernut, up to 1,264 square feet of garage/accessory building on one lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requ'uements in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. l.e.: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan desi�ates this properiy, 7858 Long Lake Road, low-density residential. This proposal dces not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character ofthe SurroundingArea The majoriry of the lots in this area aze larger than the subject properly although many of the lots _ ; Planning Commission Resolution 541-98 April 15, 1998 Page 2 _ _ across Long Lake Road are smaller parcels. While the proposed garage is larger than what is typical for this area, the placement of the garage addition behind the home hides it from Long Lake Road. The gazage would be visible only to the three adjouung properties. Staff has spoken to two of the three neighboring property owners, who do not foresee a problem with the addition. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. This addition will serve to increase the subject property's value without negatively impacting the values of the neighboring properties. The demonstrated need for such a use. The applicant has indicated that they own antique and classic vehicles that are currently parked in different locations across the metro area. With the applicant's everyday-use vehicles there is no room in the garage or driveway for the other vehicles owned by the applicant. The size requested is the minimum needed to satisfy the applicant's needs. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use pemut, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause tr�c hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The construction of an oversized garage will not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it create an increase in traf�ic on adjacent streets. The increase in runoff from the larger structure is not significant and will not affect the drainage system. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or sepazated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that e:cisting homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The placement of the garage addition so that the structure is hidden from street view will provide adequate screening, and will preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. The garage addition, will however, be in full view of the three adjoining properties. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the Ciry. Gazages are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for storage of vehicles and other equipment. _ I i �� . 's .�_ : i Y G.' � _ ' � ' �_ ."_ '__ "�._.. .--_ �_:- .-- �_-: � __ _ _ �` _ ____ '_ __'t ' " .- ':. �--.. _"- :-.� . ��: � ��. . ._ _ � �i - ' " H , . '_—'"__ '_ _ " "_ "._ " _' — .. " _ 1 - . _ . �� . . _.:- -� � " Planning Commission Resolution 541-98 April 15, 1998 Page 3 Having this gazage will allow for the property owner to store his collectable vehicles upon his own property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use pernut shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and a receint of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a seamless and uniform building appearance with the existing garage and house. 3. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use pernut shall become null and void. 4 C� No other sheds or accessory buildings shall be allowed on this lot. There shall be no vehicle access door on the west elevation of the addition. Vehicle ingress/egress shall only be possible through the existing garage. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City to ensure a high quality of workmanship and timely completion of the development. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 15th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: (SEAL) A:�541-98PC.RES r ` � Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director _ _ - , _ u I� � _ _:_ � t --- ; k . . - ,,_ .—_ � , . - —, - __ ; --- ----:�2�— � --- _-- _� - .... . � _ .� __ _.:e _ _. _ . . Plannin Commission g Memo TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Jim Ericson, Planzung Associate SUBJECT: Walgreens Development Proposal DATE: Apri18, 1998 TOLD Development Company has requested that the City approve a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of residential properties to allow for the construction of a Walgreens store at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and County Road I. This case has been discussed at five previous Planning Commission meetings, the last of which a motion was made to approve a resolution denying the development. The vote was not taken, however, because the resolution for denial was not worded in accordance to the desires of the Planning Commission. The date by which final action on this proposal would need to be taken is May 29, 1998. Attached to this report aze Resolutions 536-98 and 538-98, resolutions recommending denial of the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning ordinance, respectively. � I f, . �� _ - �`.-. _ . ___._. _--__ _ _ ' ___ .. _— __ . _�.. J!Y I-��.�' _�. �� G...�e � � � _— _ ' y � _Y - _ " __ — . es.=�_� �.«. - _ _. __ ' �_�.. -� MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CONIlVIISSION RESOLUTION NO. 536-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VTEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF NIIN1vESOTA RESOLUTION RECONIlVIENDING DENIAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY AND ffiGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2625 HIGHWAY 10 AND 7715-7761 EASTWOOD ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. 507-97. WHEREAS, TOLD Development Company has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment which would change the designation of the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road from high and low density residential to neighborhood commercial; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties are described as follows: The South r/ of Lot 51, All of Lot S0, Lot 49 and Lot 78, Spring Lake Park Hillview, Ramsey County, Mannesota WHEREAS, Section 401.09 of the Mounds View Municipal Code states that the City has adopted the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mounds View, dated 1979, as its plan for future development and growth within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View adopted the 1979 Comprehensive Plan in 1982 by Resolution No. 1467; and, VVHEItEAS, hoth the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning map designate these properties for residential development; and, WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has disapproved of an access from the subject properties onto Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following finding that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan due to the extent of commercial encroachment into the residential district. NOW, 'I�REFORE, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council deny an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate the south 1/z of Lot S 1 and all of Lots 50, 49 and 78 to NC, Neighborhood Commercial. . . i . _ . _ . . . _ . . . , -- -.: ,. .. _. :., _ -= -.-. - -- - - - , . _-; _ -- . Planning Commission Resolution No. 536-98 April 15, 1998 Page 2 t � `.: . ` :i I.� � ------ — ==-- �� f - — ,- - , i i. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 15th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV \DEVCASES�507-97�536-98NO.RES Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director ��_ I _ r _ _ _ _ __ ______ - _ E ..�``e.a' � . - .. : . . . ... . .. : . ' • _ _ _ . . . _ _.'.,... ^ ._�_�-' ' .'__'_ � :.-:. ._.. .. -'- �_ . �.�., r r _ _ F _ - _ `� ' . _ "' -'_ ..-�. . . �-"r �. ... "._'_"' ' '"-_ .' __' _'_. .. , ' I .'�-�: ` . MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CONIlVIISSION RESOLUI'ION NOo 538-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNE.SOTA A RESOLUTION RECOMNg'�1VDING DENIAL OF ORDINANCE 614, AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE REZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2625 HIGHWAY 10 AND 7715-7761 EASTWOOD ROAD FR.OM R-3, MEDILTM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, A1VD R-1, SINGLE FAMII.Y RESIDENTIAL, TO B-2, LIlVIITED BUSINESS DISTRICT; PLANNING CASE NO. 507-97. WHEREAS, TOLD Development Company has applied for a rezoning of the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road fram residential to commercial; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties are described as follows: The South % of Lot SI, All of Lot S0, Lot 49 and Lot 78, Spring Lake Park Hillview, Ramsey County, Mannesota WHEREAS, the subject properties form a contiguous tract of land at the northeast corner of the Highway 10 and County Road I, at the fringe of an established residendal neighborhood; and, WHIItEAS, the proposal would remove four existing single-family homes from the City's housing stock; and, WHEREAS, the rezoning request would not be consistent with the comprehensive plan, which designates the properties as low and high density residential. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council deny Ordinance 614, an ordinance approving the rezoning of properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-61 Eastwood Road to B-2, Limited Business District. BE IT FURTI-�R RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Sta.ff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. ____ _ _ i _ _ _ -_ � . _ _Y .. _ .__ _ �� _ �----- _---- - � -� --- =--- ,�..-- Planning Commission Resolution No. 538-98 April 15, 1998 Page 2 Adopted this 15th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: (SEAL) �__�=�' N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES\507-97�.538-98NO.RES � . ; _ _ ---- =- -- ' ---- ---- _ : , 7erry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director x � �,: _ F r _ �: � E� . . .__. _ �._ _- -- . .- �- -._ _.-. ._:_ , __-.,_« _ _'__:;-----'� !-""- "_�--��-- -- . . . - - . • . _ - - -- - - - - � _�.� Planning Commission Resolution No. 536-98 April 15, 1998 Page 2 BE IT FURTI�R RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 15th day of April, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N: �DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEV CASES�507-97\536-98NO.RFS �'-- `�_> '' i -=_... _.-.� --- - � - �-°--- -- _ -- _- - - >:_._... --�---_, �_'- _ _ ___ . � - - � MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMIVIISSION RF�OLUTION NO. 538-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MIIVNESOTA A RESOLUTION RECOMIV�ENllING DENIAL OF ORDINANCE 614, AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE REZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2625 HIGHWAY 10 AND 7715-7761 EASTWOOD ROAD FROM R-3, MEDNM DENSII'Y RESIDENTIAL, AND R-1, SINGLE FAlVIILY RESIDENTIAL, TO B-2, LIlVIITED BUSINESS DISTRICT; PLANNING CASE NOe 507-97. WHEREAS, TOLD Development Company has applied for a rezoning of the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road from residential to commercial.; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties are described as follows: The South '/ of Lot 51, All of Lot S0, Lot 49 anrl Lot 78, Spring Lake Park Hillview, Ramsey County, Minnesota V'�HEREAS, the subject properties form a contiguous tract of land at the northeast corner of the Highway 10 and County Road I, at the fringe of an establisherl residential neighborhood; and, VVHEREAS, the proposal would remove four existing single-family homes from the City's housing stock; and, WHEREAS, the rezoning request would not be consistent with the comprehensive plan, which designates the properkies as low and high density residential. NOW TI�EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council deny Ordinance 614, an ordinance approving the rezoning of properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-61 Eastwood Road to B-2, Limited Business District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. ' - 1 ` <-:=- � __ : = � �:. _ ___ _�_ _-_ - �_'� Planning Commission Resolution No. 538-98 April 15, 1998 Page 2 Adopted this 15th day of April, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N: \DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV \DEVCASES�507-97�.538-98NO.RES ._ - : _ ._ - , - - , , r. - -: = _ __,; _�s� , -=_ _ ___ . - --_ — --_— _. _-� -- - - ---- .. ..° - `-. _` � --_-- - -- �: '_ _ . . Planning Commission Resolution No. 536-98 April 15, 1998 Page 2 BE IT FLTRTI�R RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 15th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: (SEAL) N: �DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES�507-971536-98NO.RES + � �_:�� Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director � . .. � . . } . . _ . . . . . . . ,.. . -� � � _. . ' �.� . �-.� '`_�� _ .•.:..�''� "�� __ �_--._-:-�- ,!.'.w.ac»- -==c'� I - - - _ ' . � � - ' - = F i" ' _ ' ' ' - "_- . _ _ —_-__' _ . . . . -. .. . : .__-____ —. . _ � ' . I 1 , � � ,� � , MOUNDS VICW PLANNING COMIVIISSION RESOLUTION NO. 538-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF l��IINNTSOTA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF ORDINANCE 614, AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE REZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2625 HIGHWAY 10 AND 7715-7761 EASTWOOD ROAD FROM R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND R-1, SINGLE FAlV�Y RESIDENTIAL, TO B-2, LIlVIITED BUSINESS DISTRICT; PLANNING CASE NO. 507-97. WHEREAS, TOLD Development Company has applied for a rezoning of the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road from residendal to commercial; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties are describerl as follows: The South % of Lot SI, All of Lot S0, Lot 49 and Lot 78, Spring Lake Park Hillview, Ramsey County, Mannesota WHEREAS, the subject properties form a contiguous tract of land at the northeast corner of the Highway 10 and County Road I, at the fringe of an established residential neighborhood; and, WI�REAS, the proposal would remove four existing single-family homes from the City's housing stock; and, WHEREAS, the rezoning request would not be consistent with the comprehensive plan, which designates the properties as low and high density residential. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council deny Ordinance 614, an ordinance approving the rezoning of properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-61 Eastwood Road to B-2, Limited Business District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. . _ - �. . ; , , - � . _ _. _ ��' - - - - _ , , _ - • - - -- -- _ -- _;_ _; - --- �----- � -- , _. : , , _ . _ __r«� --= - -- - - - - __ 4 , , - . Planning Commission Resolution No. 538-98 April 15, 1998 Page 2 Adopted this 15th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV \DEV CASES�.507-97�53 8-98NO.RES -_� Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director ' . . . . . - . i . . . . . . . _ . . . - . -. -. -- - - .. . -_: _ - ' . _, . .. _ : - . . -_ _' _ --__ �..: . _ . . i . �.: �_ '- -� -. . � _.. � ' '_:: . � : - � . _ .. ' _: ..-_ . _'_ ' � REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: Staff Report by: Planning Case No.: Request: Petitioner: Location: PIN Nos.: Legal Description: Zoning/Land Use: Applicable Regulations: April 15, 1998 James Ericson, Planning Associate 514-97 Development Review Bridges Leasing Company, LLC 8400 Coral Sea Street OS-30-23-21-0003 Lot 2, Block 1, North Star Industrial 2nd Addition I-1, Light Industrial District / undeveloped lot • Development Review: Section 1006.06 requires that all commercial and industrial development within the City be subject to review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. • Setbacks: Section 1104.01 establishes the principal building and parking lot setbacks. These will be addressed in the analysis section of this report. • Minimum Lot Size: Section 1104.02, Subd. 2 establishes the minimum lot size in an the Industrial Zone as one acre (43,560 square feet.) • Parking Requirements: Section 1121.13 sets the requirements for parking ratios. Summary: The applicant, Bridges Technology Park, has applied for a development review to expand their existing building located at 8400 Coral Sea Street. The new addition will be 35,188 square feet for a total build-out of 64,376 square feet. The building will be 10,188 square feet of office space and 25,000 square feet of warehouse space. The site is currently zoned I-1, Industrial District, which allows this use. This parcel is undeveloped with the western edge of the property in wetland, and the remaining area covered by dense tree cover. The propased expansion will match the design and style of the e�sting building. ` � V ..� . � ..� ��' . _ ' � -`'t ._ .. . _ �v . . . .__ __ � • . '- . .:" - ' .._ ._' __ _ _ . ' ' . .- _� � .- - I ^ � " _ _ - - _ '� _ _ ' .. -.. ._ ._. .:. _ :. . s-.' _._- _ ..=-.L. ...' ____v �� _ . . � __ __ _'_ '__ '_-__ -_. _.�_�_z. _. _ �' - . Planning Commission Report Bridges Technology Park Phase II Planning Case 514-98 March 27, 1998 Page 2 Discussion: Prevtouslv. This request was discussed at the Planning commission's last meeting on April 1, 1998. According to the site plan dated 3/6/98, all of the dimensional requirements for this development would be met with the exception of the parking requirements, which will be discussed further below. One of the primary issues that was raised at the last meeting concerned how close the paved area was to the delineated wetland. It was requested that the distance between the wetland and pavement be increased to a minimum of ten feet. The revised plan (date-stamped 4/8/98) submitted by the applicant shows a setback of ten feet while maintaining a minimum 26-foot drive-aisle behind the building, as recommended by the Fire Marshal. .Draina�e. Wetland Gonsiderations and Wetland Alteration Permit• As discussed at the last meeting, because work is being done within 100 feet of the wetland, the applicant will need to have a wetland buffer pernut approved by the City. From the revised site plans, the new parking area and drive-aisles will be a minimum of ten feet from the delineated edge of the wetland. The revised site plan shows the 100-foot wetland buffer, the edge of the easement area, and statistics regarding the area of the buffer and the percent of which is covered in pervious and impervious surface. Parking_ The applicant has provided a master site plan for both lots 2 and 3 showing the parking for the existing and proposed buildings. Altogether, a total of 200 spaces would be required for both buildings, with a total of only 162 stalls being provided. The remaining 38 stalls are indicated as "proof of parking" on the master site plan. The proof of parking can be allowed one of two ways. For the neighboring ZEP manufacturing, the proof of parking was allowed by adjusting the office and warehouse parking ratios on the condition that the spaces be constructed if needed in the future. The Code, in Section 1121.14, requires that a conditional use pernut be obtained for any reduction in parking space requirements. Obviously, a variance to the parking ratios would be the more expedient solution, if that choice is still an option considering the what the Code requires. If a variance to the parking requirements were considered, the following amended ratios would closely match with the number of stalls being provided: Office: 3 spaces plus 1 per 200 square feet of floor area = 3+ 84 = 87 Warehouse: 8 spaces plus 1 per 750 square feet of floor area = 8+ 65 = 73 160 The difference between the number of stalls provided (162) and the number required (200) would need to be shown as future parking (38). F _ _ ._____ __ ___ _ . � I_ .. .. _ _, I � :' . . - '..' .� .- � '�: �'�� r_ ��..':-. "' i - ' - } I.r r_.. .._ '"".. . �. � . ��. ' "'.��_ "_._'"'_-- ` _._:�-. �. .?-..... . _- .. ... __— .... .. "'""'�_ .'—' -�. Planning Commission Report Bridges Technology Park Phase II Planning Case 514�98 March 27, 1998 Page 3 The site plan shows seven handicapped-accessible stalls, which is one less than what would be required if all 200 parking stalls were built. Because only 162 stall are being built, the Americans With Disabilities (ADA) act requirements are met. Easement Vacation: The ordinance vacating the drainage and utility easements between Lots 2 and 3 has been drafted by the City Attorney and is attached for your reference. No action is required of the Planning Commission for this item. Easement Dedication: The legal description of the wetland on the subject lot has been forwarded to the City Attorney, who is preparing an easement document that will dedicate to the City a drainage and utility easement over that delineated wetland area. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 542-98, a resolution recommending approval to the City Council of a development review for the Bridges Technology Park Phase II expansion, with stipulations. James Ericson, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Ordinance 615 2. Resolution 4800, approved 8/28/95 3. Revised Site Plans, dated 4/8/98 (Separate Attachment) 4. Resolution 542-98 N:�DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV�DE VCASES�S 1498\514-97.PC2 `�`- � _.�__-c_ ��-.c4'� C.�-^s��'__'-.'_F — L+ � ��,� �i � � _ ; - - - __ = --_ _�;; . . < - --� �:-- ..�.__ __ -=---- --- -_____ , - - , � �- .. --- -_ -_- ;F � RESOLUTION N0. 4800 CITY OF MOUNDS VTEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND WETLAND ALTER.ATION PERMIT FOR MIDWEST IoVo, PI,ANNING CASE N0. 419-95 WHEREAS, Midwest T,`V. has requested City approval to construct a 29,168 square foot Office/Manufacturing facility at 8400 Coral Sea Street; and WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial developments within the City; and WHEREAS, Chapter 1010 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires the issuance of a Wetland Alteration Permit for work conducted in the Wetland Buffer Zone; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents regarding this development proposalo 1. Planning Application dated June 1, 1995 2. Site/Landscape/Drainage Plan dated July 21, 1995 and revised August 7, 1995 = WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the __ proposal is in conformance with all applicable requirements of Chapter 1116, Industrial Zone District, of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and � WHEREAS, the Rice Creek Watershed District and the City of Mounds View Consulting Engineer have reviewed the proposed drainage plan for the project and recommend approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council approves the Development Review and Wetland Alteration Permit request for Midwest I.V. contingent upon the following: 1) The applicant shall provide landscaping as directed by the City Forester in his letter dated July 14, 1995. 2) The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mounds View. ATTEST: (SEAL) Adopted this 28th day of Auqust, 1995. ' } ` i . 1: � ; '' .�.,: � .�,' 1`- "1:; ... ��, ��: � i; i ': r� � �, , �, �; ' `'� , y'� °�° �: ,, r � _ ,��; .� : � . , � .�: � � .� :� ��. �� .. : � ��: .�� S��.U'I`��iN }�CO �9�G �pROV�, o�' A DE�LOPI�NT I�� Olt E��T�IOi�T ��' � s�ao �o s�� s ��, ��, ��s �c o�,o�� G C.ASE �i0. S14m9� ' �ER�A�, Bridges Leasin� Company, LLC, has requested Ci�y �pproval to ex�nand its building at 8400 Corai �ea �tre�t #o i��lude the property at �450 Coral Sea Street; and �REAS, �he Mounds View �ity Counc1� aPpraved Resolution 4800 on �/28/95 �ppra�g a development review and wetia.nd aitera�ian permit for Mid�,est I�I go p�r�t �he constructian �f a 29,158 squa.re fooi office/warehouse buildir��; and, I ��ZEAS, Chapter 1006 of the Niounds View Mun�cipa.t Code requires that a develapment revievv be conducied for all commerCial and iridusiriat development �thin the Ci ; and, � �REAS, the Mour�ds `Iiew Planni�g Commisssar� has r��ewed the following documents regarding this prapesal: �• �lanningApplication, dated 3/5/98 z• Zoning and Location Map 3• City Council Resolution No. 4�00, approved 8/2�/95 4. Site Plans, dated 3/6/98 and revised 4/8/98 �REA�, �he Maunds View Pianning Corrim�ssion finds that the dimensional requirements as se# forth in Chapter 1104 of the Municipai Code have been met; and, �REAS, the Mounds View Plarrnning Cornmission fnds that the sii� plans d�ted 3/6/98 and r�vised site plans dated 4/8/98 conform to the requiremen�s of Chapg�r 1116, IndustriaI �oning I3istrict; and, �EREAS, ihe Rice Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer have reviewed the praposed drainage plans and find them in conformance to watershed and local water rrianagement �1an requirem�nts; and, �REAS, the City Forester has reviewed the proposed landscapin� plan and fir�ds it to be acceptable; and, ��R�AS, the Mounds View/Sprin� Lake Parlc/�lain� Fire 1!/larshai has t°evi�vaed the site plans concer�ang access and drive aisies and find them to �orif'orrn tio Fire I7epactrrgent ! specificaiions. i I Plannin� Commission Itesoiution 542W98 Brid�es i�evelopment Review April 15, 1998 Pag� 2 I�tOi�', 1�FOI�y �Er � IAY��I,/L @' 1'r�y thai the Mounds View Plat�ing Commission recommends approval io the City Council of a development revtew for Bridges Leasing Campany, LLC, �o �xpa.nd the Bridges 'Technology Paxk as shown on site plans dated 3/6/9$ and xevised 4/�/98, subject to the following stipulat�ans: 1. Prior �o the issuance of any City pem�its, the applicant shatI accomplish the foiiowuag: a. Obtain a�tice Creek �+latershed District permii. b. Enter anto a development agreement �vvith the C�ty. c. Coordinate with Ciiy staff to resolve the parking requirement incansis�ency either by obtairung a variance or conditional use permit for the reduced parking ratios. d. �rrange to c�mbine Lois 2 and 3, Block 1 of fihe North Star industrial Park 2nd Acidition with Ramsey Coun�y and pravide proof of such application to the City. e. Arrange to have recorded with Ramsey County the drainage �nd utility easement documeni for the weiland area as indicated on the revised siie plan dated 4/S/9� and provide proof of such recordation to the City. i � 2. Appravat of this development review shall be coniingent upon the adoption of Ordinance 6I5, an ordinance vacating a portion of a drainage and utility easement over and across Lots 2 and 3. �� I'� F� R 1t�SO�VED that the Plarming Co�nission directs Staff to forward this resolution ta the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted ihis 15th day of 1�pri(, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jo�ke, Communuty Deveiopment Dir�ctor �E�., N:�ATA1GItOUPS\COMDEV�DEVCASES1514-981542-98PC.RES I j � i , _ �-� ': 1 ' `� ='��. ►, " � #� '� �' �` ' `#; �`,,' , : + , + . : �� = i � . , � � , ., ;�< �: �. , � . � � �t '�� •� �� r � � :r � . .: �� . � ,� � ; : �.�� . .�j ' � }R ; r. ,'' � ., '� - . �.. �Ir •', I� �' ��- �`. , � THE CIT`Y OF MOUNDS VIEW OKnAINS: SECTIQN 1. The City of Mounds �iiew Municipal Cod� Appendix D is her�by arnended to includ� reference to th� follo�.ving Speczal Ordinance No. 6I5: Subdivis�on I. All of the followiz�g describ�d land is subject to an easement ("Drainag� and Utility Easement") �or pubtic �atility purposes, as show on the plai of NORTH STAR IND�JSTRIAL PAR� 2ND ADDIT'ION, Rarnsey County, Minnesota: Lots 2 and 3, Block l, NORTH STAR �TDUSTRIAL P�,RI� 2ND `� ADDITIOIV, according to the recorded plat thereof situated in - Ramsey County, Minnesata. Subd. 2. The fee owner o�th� land subject to the Drainage and Utility Easement, Bridges Leasing Company, LLC, has requested ihe vacation of a portion of ih� I3rainage and LTtflity Easement described as folIows: 'To vacate a perpetual easement for utiTity arid draanage purgoses o�iginally dedicated over that paa°t of Lots 2 and 3, Biock 1, N4RTH STAR INDLJSTRIAL PARK 2�D ADDITION, accordin� to the recorded plat thereof siriaaied in Ramsey Cotuity, Minnesota being a 10 foot strip of land lying S feet on each side of and adjacent to the south line of said Lot 2 and lying west of the east 10 feet of said Lots 2 and 3 and lying ea�terly of the westerly IO feet of said Lots 2 and 3. Subd. 3. There are no public utiiities or facillties located in the portion af the Draina�� and Utility Easement area to be vacated described in S�bd. 2 of this Ordinance. The proposed vac�tion af the portion of the Dra�inage and Uiility Easement therefore wilI not adverseiy affect tlxe ability of the City oc oth�r utility to maintain, repair, or replace public utiiities. Subd. 4. The Ca�ancil finds that there is no longer a p�ablic need for that portion of eh� ' Drainag� and L�iility Easemeni to be vacated, as described in Subd. 2 of this Ordinance. SJR140661 M(12I0-5 i � Subd. 5. The portion of the Drainag� artd Utility Easement, as described in Subd. 2 of fhis Ord'znance, is hereby vacated. SECTION 2. This ordinance Yakes effect 30 days after iis publication. Read by the City Ca�.inciI of Yhe C�ty of Mounds View this day oi �, � 99g. Read and passed by th� City Co�xcil of ihe Ciiy of Maunds View this day of , 1998. uane Mc arty, Mayor ar es S. ttng, ity er -A gn. APPRQVED A� TO FORM: o ert Long, ity Attomey SJR190661 MU210-5 0 �; ; :, :': ; ;� m � � ' i � . .�: _ ` 1; ;! .� : �. �; �. : , .� - ,�. . �" .R= � " � � . '; ' ` ;1. . �' i ` ; � , ,� � `- =f � ' : �� °�- ':i � :li � ��`�. ' ` , ' ; � ; , '. ,, 1. . �; 2410 $igh��y i09 1, Ca11 to Oa°der 'T�e meeting was called to order by Chairperson 2. l�o�l Calt Pviembers rp esent,� Chairperson Peierson, Com�ssio Obert (arrived 7:15), and Stevensor►. �:;�f;",;:;�, �y<, r: Members absent� Commissione� Br �' ��xc��i�4 i � �: �lk� -. Also �resent: Comrnunity Deve�,� ment I�.�ctoi Jo� � Council Liaison Koopmeine�� ved 7�fi p.m., � Hix. � Iaedex �o itegul�Y Nleet�n� April 1, 299� !s � Ce� Fiall ,; = e�r, 55� 12 t� . • ��,'" . �� Jahnsan, I+i�iller, anning Associate Ericson, 9:36 p.m,), and Recorder Dave s' �3equests d� tnmex�� '��loi o� the r�ge�eda . � � < < '' ;� t �� ,� � ��-� x � >` �� , > ��; ��%. F�s'�,,no czti ,;,��u�s�s or coinments an items not on the agenda, Piannit��ase No. 507 �'�,:��_;�ighway 10, 7715-77b1 Eastwood Road, Disc��s�`ion Regarding V�algr��rY��evelopment Request, Comprehensive Pl��mendment and l�e��ning, TOLD Devetopment Company. ��a.nx�in�; Case No �"�98, 8400 Cora! Se� Street Discussion Re ardin ,��: � � g � ��v��.��xent R��t�vN for Completion of the 2nd Phase of Bridges �"��i��,� ��a��`�ing Project, Bridges Leasing Company, LLC. Planning Case No. 517-98, 2430 Highway 10 (O`Neil PraperCy), I�iscussion ltegarding the Develop►nent Review Stage of the P[JD, Preliminary Flat and a Vdetland Bui�'er Permiti, AP IVlounds �Iiew Limited Partnership (Anthony Properties). Page 2 10 lI ! f I1�oo�nds '�a�wv P�ann'sng Commissior� tlprit 1, 199� I2e �9ar l�eetir� Pa � 2 4, App�ov�i oiIl�in�tes: IViarch 49 I99� (12egula�°) Motion/ ecand: �tevenson/Peterson to approve the March 4, 199� regular meeting minutes as amended. ,;��,� Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 S. Plareni�g Case I�da. 507-97 2b25 Highway I0, 7715-7761 Eastwood Road Applicani: TOLD Development Company Discussion Regarding Walgreen Development Request, Rezoning. � The applicar►i, TOLD Development presen�. ;� Associa�e Eracson made hi TQLD Deveiopmer�i, on �.rrten�iment and r�ze��; Wa�i��.�ri� store at..t�ie �i� co�� new 1. .:�� the Plan Amendment, and Cunningham, was of Wa��iteen's,,i�'�equesting a Comprehensive Plan ;ide:t�i�I ��et`ttes to allow for the const�uciion af a cor�� €��way 10 and County Road I. The meeting ous Pianning Commission meetings, public hearings and ion with the Comprehensive Plan Update process. The id;`�+as made available as follows: Amer�ic�n Pla�ng Association (APA} information, which was not attached ; because t� dit� �t�i`�ddress the issue of how the Walgreen store would affect :_ adjacen� ��p��y, property vatues. 2. Discussi�n with the City Attorney regarding who is responsibie for the decline in prop� values, if any, when a commercial development comes into a residentia! A. The City Attorney advised: Neither ihe City nor the deveioper, in general, can be held iiable for any real or perceived reduction in property value. There is a certain de�r�e of risk that goes witli properties that abut vacant land, or that is in close proximity to major transportation arteries or major commercial centers. In the ev�nt a mistake or oversight is made during the project review oc construction, accardin� to IVlinnesota Statutes, a city, iis ;:'�: j ` ; ' `� 1: M�ue�ds �i�� Pt�nnin� Cornrnas�iort r�pr°i� l, I99� lt� ulae° �il�e�i� pa � � staff and paid consultants, in general, cannot b� held liable for any damages. 3. I3iscussion with the City Engineee. A. in regards to questions raised about the water table in its immediate area Engineering consultant, has advis� " < the water table directly attributab � the impervious surfac� area prapc�se water ta61e. �Ie has also advised �� might effect the developrnent's adj�� because of the newiy regraded part� 4. MnDOT meetir�g Concerning right•�i I,: `: A. MnDOT has denied t rop B, NinDOT does no� ; n the �.+ cannoi prever� � acces '' : , �.,�� :.;s>; C. MnDOT � .; ed with �'4��,1�' turrn l�.tze t��County I��a(i � r wa�iic�'��'ave ihe a��r�It�� 5. -�r prc��?. as a too W � City this nr be rnt effecting the City's �a ginpact tQ the at s�ornt water t-�� rvhich ��rties woutd also be d�creased due to.�a'��etv consideratio�s. ��ius location and as such the City so desires. `� experts that the addition af a righ� : removal of the Eastwood Road Access ing of the intersection. u� c��ations were presented with their associated costs, which �t%k�`�ngineer and Director of Public Works gave written , .y �� c��lming devises presented might be good test cases which, I, co�ld be incorporated in�o future street reconstnactions and peeds on some streets with long, uninterrup#ed blocks." The impact that t�� 1�algreen Development would have on the adjacent properry owners has not been re��ved. TOLD Development Company has affered to compensate the adjacent pro '< owners with additia�al land or by means of a cash se�tiement. �C'��;�"commended approving Flanning Com�nission Resolutian 536-98 a resolution ��rctm�nding thai the City Council approve a Comprehensive Pian asnendment to change the desigr�ations of the properYies iocated at 2625 Highway ld and 7715-7i61 Eastwood Aoad to NC, N�i�hborhood Commercial, to allor�v for the constrrzction of a V+Ialgreen Drug Store. Stafi recommended thaY the Plannrng Com�nissian approve Resolution 5328-98, a i - i l�ou�ads Vievv PEa�a�Ar�� Corr�mess�oe� Api°il 1, 1995 Re�v�ar �Iee�ir�� -- - �.m -- - - � P��e 4 resolution recommending approvai of Ordinance No. 614, and ordir�ance arr�ending the Ciey's of�icial zoning map by rezorung the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road to a B-Z, Limited Business District classification. �ot� Ceaneairagham, of TOLD Developeneni Company, made a p changes ihat had been made to the site plan as a result;�f citize�;' ,��::: Shown was the inclusion of a sidewalk from the Ea��d cul d. �lalgreen Development. Aiso inciuded was a dec; �a,t�on lane, e ,�.<:: right turn e�try off af �-iighway 10. 'I'her� was t` nciusion .>: � from the primary exit point of the property to th�ltti�ersec�a�� of �,.,,��A there was the addition of a sidewalic from Gre�r��tit��c� ��i�hhw� Ce��e�in�ia�m reviewed the pros and cons of the Pros: 1, 2, 3, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 11 perceni site coverage substantial amounts of g� ampie landscaping fencing to be part o e 45455 jabs to M�� ds V property ta.x t `-:" ue street deve�� ts pa^�€� sale o� th " y ownet� �; park c�i»��ion fees impaci o the 10 the der��3'oAer 10. follows: for questions and camments. s�showing and City request. � the praposed , i�r� for th� k� � asked the deveioper if he wouid be willing to move ihe closer to the property line. �rr� iold the Commissioners the re%renced entry point on the site plan was depicted. After giving the correct dimensions and layout he stated the entry C��i�°��r°soa� Peie�°soa� opened the public hearing. � ` : `� ��Ilaasai �aicke, 7767 Eastwood Road, asked staff io reread the City Atiorney's advisory on Yhe liabilit� of the City in re�ards to property devaluation of the properties adjacent ico the �lal�reen Developrnent. Staffreread the City Attome�'s statement. ;: ; `s �o�nds �Iiee� Pla�r�ing Co�ernission Apr�i 1, 199� Re�uflas° lbieet��e� _.,.�,m,ID m_�. �� ,� Page 5 Carof Ar°el, 7i50 Greenwood i>rive, told ihe Commission that by rezorging an R-i property to a commercial use will establish a precedent that the City will regret. 5he added that the citizens' concems about safety issues and property devaluation have not been satis:factorily addressed. ��rren ,Toh�asoa�, 7710 Greenwood Drive, stated to � ange thm ��s��'ehensive Plan, at the cost of t� payer's property, is not what he felt `" b� dt�� '�� amprehensive Plan was put into affect to protect the citizens and'� " � eep that ��€� �� I��rorr� � , �_ � .�;��- � happening. a y , � .,,;» �r,.<>>>.. �ff��, Chaie°person Peterson reminded the citizens th process of being updated ar�d revised. I-ie enco� community to ensure that their voices are heard Ndilo Prnkewton stated he was in favar of commercial property up agagnst singte Fa�r 'I'irra �et�s�, 7715 Eastwood, toid `. � Road, is against the town home '• jeci John �ie�s, 77b0 Gree represent them on this p� '�� >> � ` ��'��'�� iYiO�t� ��;: k tI�L�T 1Ci�4it7teC� O� ��' �ti that SC��Ct'� o�''i�e resid��t keeptn��, ��,e �t��i��di�ed h� �� is app�� sh� �i�ts to sfaying � s: is poor iensiv� l�lan ��'�;;c�ie icipatioza af the er►tire ��d�ate process. He added putting �rhood on Eastwood is currently developing. ihe oi`�`zens don'i have an advocate to d�.?rt��, staied the residents on Greenwood Drive were ,'��G�.t tfia't was going in on this particular site. She stafied �ood Drive are racist and that is the motivation for �of the area. 5he added, if the Walgreer� DeveIopment %els she won'i be able to sell her home because of its Chaarp�t°son P��+�� told Ms. Hilton the Planning Commission is charged with the very di�cult res�onsibility of making batanced decisions for the City and its citizens. �.F �.�t3'lliilSSiOlt:_�;�ra�aemle, in response to fhe word "racist", told Ms. Hilton he voted 7a�r�st ��wn homes b�cause the fronted on Hi hwa 10� not becaus� he was o os�d �� „�,'��,. Y g Y , PP �ti �c��ab'�le housin�. ;.,� I��~. P�nk�rt�� asked if there are other praposals conceming this property that woutd main�ain its residential char�cter. Staf�Ftoid 1ViJ-. Pinkerton no other proposais are currently on the table for the property: Cha�r�e�°s�n �et�r°so�a ioEd NTr. Pinkerton that his reference to the property, the busiest IVlou�ds View �'lart�ie�g Com�rais�iore Ap�°EI 1, 199� R� ul�r �Ieetia� p� � 6 comer in the City, as having residential characier, was absurd. Conxan►ssooner Obea°t asked Mr. Pinkerton if he would liv� and raise his farruly fironting a highway with daily traffic of 40,000 cars. Nlrm P�a�lcerton �oEd the Cammission that th�re is a developer, rf ��C�iy� t utd take the time to solicit that developer, who would be willing to�develop i��s ��€�perty on a resideniial basis, y� : �. �;��Z 1 % ;,1, � ,~f� �f � '� ��/F� .�, ¢ � r � > "`) NIsa Arel expressed her concern thai nobody wa� �scussing,�i��effec� �� i��T�lp�m,� would have an Greenwood Drive. �,�� J��" y ,�� 1 �,, " %;,,,�' �Iiff Ash, 2664 Lake Court Drive, expressed tus �t��t�� out the traff`ic tha.t the theater project and the Waigreen project would cr�a�� c�g��h��,. Il�Ir. Jml��ason suggested that the City conditions at the subject intersections. IVIr�o C��as�er��ha� read from a Be� alang Highway 10 from Silver a. `-e examined ihe impact that th -< ti histary during the period. >� ar Highway I0, and two on th bou prov�.�ed by the GtX�,t��zl�� nds Vz 19�� irpu,�h N��b�r 7�9'�. D rc��t�r�� r� T.H ��ti f�ti�z��`��the r � � turri?��,ses'along I-�t�w�'��'�{� or �; poin�s "' ; ','',� _ ' ;�, � e� ctirtg th� ;sted by : Road ��ith to T's unsa#`e �ra�[°ic � o�the accident history Road: "The review ng se� ``� right tu 'access locations had on accident e fi.x��right tu ��cess points tocated north-bou�d on nt�'�ighwa ��. The accident informa�ion was �w �z�� a period of 22 months from January ��`��I��`�2-month period a total of 46�accidents were ecor��ed accidents occurred at the site of existing right could be attributed to vehicles using these access ed the applicant if they would be willing to consider Highway 10 access to only out-bound right turns, as Ii'I�°. Cunae�ng � told the Commission that TOLD is having Benshoaf and Assaciates discuss �he is�v�e in more detail with MNI�OT. Based on the outcome of these discussions �ll,�,r��l�i�� ssues should be !eft open. He was not willing to commit whether Walgreens �tt��at� ��°w�lling to continue with the project if the right tum off of Highway 10 was nat Camrr�issioa��- Johnston expressed his concems about the lack af an acceleration lane from the project. �/[sa tlrel stated that the iack of ir�f'ormation regarding the right-turn lan� issues r.vas proof -� , 1 i: . Mounds �I�evv Plar��i�� Commiss�on Apwdl 1, 199� I�egui��° 1Vi�e�ira� P��e 7 that the citize�s safety concems had not b�en apprapriately addressed. Cl�aer°pea°so� Pe#ea°son closed the pubGc hearing and returned tt�e floor to the Comenission for questions and comrnents. Coan�assio�eer John�ton, again, stated his concern ��he la for the proj ect. He said he would have a hard time ,< :< far IVinDOT is not behind the designed access point. Corrier�iss'�ners Stevereson9 Brasaerreleq anc� £ wouId noi be in favor of going against MnDOT Cor�xr�a��sioa�er ��°�saernl� told the Commi aa paying commercial devetopments. If the Ci resid�ntial tax rates wili continue to increas� ion lane xnr� that "revv is in need of tax- i�:s� is not expanded the ;.y 1V��-. Jot�nsoa� stated the message th '� em� ��;��r,,th� �� the Comprehensive r�,,,...,.:;,.; . . �, Pian Update community forurns w at Hi a�;"�:��t,�;: �' oniy location that .r i:.:;::a><::..«...::::y..:i . ,�... .,:.V• �.. �.��i�i� commercial development is wel�a e. If o}ec� 1�:�� considered along IIighway 10, the R-1 prop�rty that abuts opose. � roject s�ld be rezoned to R-2 or R-3 to buffer ihe R-1 areas from t:�� rnmer, develop ° nt, it wo� projec. issioraea° � �sseo�� far an increase in their commercial tax Waigreen project was close enough to Highway 10 that �ion into the residential area abutting the praposed agceed with the citizens that ihe R-1 area needs a bigger buffer �o�n�dssaoner�, s ber°t stated the City could run the risk of developing the reputation of b�ing urifrie�,,.� ta developers by requiring the purchase af buffer property to go along �:uzth a ��i��i�roieci. ��=��son P��erson stated the City needs to develop a"downtown feel." Currently, most services that ihe Mounds View citizens require are found outside of the City. He s�aggested it is Yirne to bring those services intio the immediate �rea and develop that "downtown feel." He asiked his fetlow Commissioners i� a�s�ec the foilowing question: Is the use of i: i' NTounei� 'Vxe� �lan�air�g Co�ra�essian Ap�°i! 1, 199i3 ��la�° 1VIe��a�� 1'a e � adjacent properties, in regards to th� Walgreen projec�, within the boundaries of what ihe Comprehensive P(an should laok like in its updaie? IVlotion / ond: Ober�/Peterson to approve Resolution 53b-98, a resolution recor��ending that the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change tt��c�esi�tions of the properties located at 2b25 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastw od Roac�. trt ��9 �T�ighborhood Commeccial, ta allow for the construction of a Walgreen D.. tore %�:;� '':�, The floor was opened for discussian o�the C�anrtais�ione� Jod�rest�n agreed with Commiss[� are appropriafie for the Highway 10 corridor prop Cornr��ssior�er �tevensor� reminded the properties do noi abut Highway 10, and deszgnaiion. Chap�-pea�son �'�terso� stated ihe threshold, wheiher they front on¢>' develapment plan. � A vote was calied on the� on �,omm��ston ttr< :here�c�r�,,should >�'; ' � � `� �� '"� ��, � �y/,p�lk � �� ties�.�ior�� %,�� . ;;�02' I7Qi, �,; �..} ;u;%� >r OOi. ..:. son's cornrnene #:�.��°�3 zones ��` t��he five subject b+� �rsz��dered �or the NC F"� ' 1S� within the 100-yard of the Highway 10 comdor o� f��approve resolution 536-98, a Resolution recomtnending iendment from !ow density and high density residential to perties located at 2625 Highway i0 and 7715-7761 Eastwaod a� suggested adding a Whererrs indicating that MnDOT has denied access disapprovai of an access at this tocation. n was moved and seconded. rh� Commission reviewed aiternate Resoiution 536-98 and made changes in verbiage and Yhe use of the s�ated goals. 1l��yoa° I�sC��-�y, who was in attendance, addressed the Commission by stating the fottowirrg: ;,, J ,1 ,: l�ou�eefs 'View Piaranen� Corc�m�s�ao� April 1, 199� Re ular 1!/�eetin .�. ..�.� F��e 9 The defeated moiion, denying the resolution af approvat, leaves the Cornmission with a condition �hai hasn't changed, the zoning hasr�'t changed and there is no recommendation to the City Council for a change. By adopting the additional resotution, the motion currenily on �he floor, adoiitiar�al arg,uments and issues are set up that rnay `�te tega! questions thai need not be addressed. � The Ma.yor suggested withdrawing the motion and Corra�ffssioner �r�saerrolc withdrew the ne�ded to be acted on. I�Iayor I�Ie�a� told the Commission Resoli if the applicant decides ta appeal the Pianning Caensr�issYOner Obee°t asked the IVlayor i�' ihe Zoning Plan. <:.<>; zF:' <. ;s; ; � �w Mayor NIcC'�rty toid the Commi�'`° n the Plan takes precedent over the Zc�i�in� PianG asked !d corne before the Council ision to deny approval. precedent over that the Compreher�sive D'erecioe° .Topk� read from;,_ ��er 11 � of th� C�: "The Ptanning Commission shat! � make a Findin� oiFact a�� ecomm�td�such ac;� < hs or conditions relating to the title neces ary to carry o�;th��tended ��c�'s��ie title. Such recommendation shali be in ,�,,�, t , � � �. �t�� z�d acco��c� ��, a repo� ��tl�,��bmmendation of City Sta�.,' � , �v�r ��s�;��.�� stat�ql i��' Comrrus�C��t tt�`��t the ap�ra� � ; �� ,, t < �� _' Motion/Se � r��id. f ;�tetr�n�o�I�i�ert to un#ii A .��15, 1998. � �� , ,: ..,,. ,�� _�,� A��s ="5 2 "�� <_ ; ; � �� `�e r�,o�ion carried. ,,�"� ld be willing to put a hQ(d on the process to allow the �,advise it needs from the City Atiomey. � e action on the application to the Plarining Commission Nays - 1 �'cCae°i� asked stafi where the application process was at in regards to the 120� tfmit. Assmci�t� Erics�� toId the Comrnission and the Mayor the 120-daymtime limit expires May 29, 199�. � ': � : li/�ounds `IYevv Pfarani�ag Comrnis��on Apr°�1 I, 199� ite�ular �ieetin� Pa�� 10 6. Planr�eng C�se 514-9� 8400 Coral Sea Street Applicant: Bridges Leasin� Company, LLC Discussian Regarding Development review for Completion Technology Building Project. � The applicant, Bridges Leasin� Company, LLC, Ass�caa�e Er�cson gav� a brief background arr Bridges Tech.r�otogy Park has applied for a expansion on their e�sting building locate addition will match the design and style;c�� The applicant is proposing a drai� was platted as part of the origin, work is being done witlun 1 Q(�� :• �.:: wetland buff�r permit app . � � �� the applicant's draina�e p�; and and dedication of an;<�,s�ent arE he will be pres Landscaping, pu requirements. ,�� 2nd �°atlows: �uil ridges a 35,1�� sq. ft, ihe proposed ��system,�uhi�t,�t�t�tcit��s wiih an earlier plan w4uch forth S�'Indusfr�a� ��rk Znd Addition. Because the of th etiand, t�� a�plicant will need to have a the �;ity. Rsce}�ee�C V+latershed district has reviewed as �ppraveds�m pending paym�nt of a cash surety Qu�r:��a�;`��tin� wetlands on site. not mee�"t�ie City Code. Twenty-seven additional stalls �. �'��e applicant can show that the e�cisting buiiding is ing �n Ordinance to accomplish the needed easement vacaiion �e Council when it considers the development review. , utilities, and easements issues are in accordance wiih City ��af�' �s; a�ki��ig the Pianning Commission to review the plans, make any revisions it deems �ec�eaa ;�or the applicant and direct th� sta�Fto prepare a resolution recommending .,.: ��rUVal af the developmer�t review to be acted on at the April 15, 1998 Planrvng Commission meeting. �hai�person Peter°�o� iurned the floor over to the appiicant for iheir presentation. . '; � Gr�dy T�ia��hoe°�a, on behalf of Bridges Leasin� Company, LLC, told the commission the ' _ i: I'�oe�n�s Vier+� Planngre� Coat��raiss6o�a Ap�°il 1, 199� ,' I�e��l��° I�eeti�eg Pa e 11 proof of parking issue would not be a problem to coriform ta. ihe only issue that he felt needed to be addressed was the parlcing iot which is located within five feei of ihe wetiand setback. As indicated the Rice Creek Watershed has given prelirninary approval for the project, , The floor was returned to the Cornrnission for It��e� r�nderson, civil engineer and representa there is a 35-foot dis�ance &om the close� parki surface drains through the NURP pond which h that may drain i� f7rom th� cars parking in ihe ta Co�nrnrssroner ,�ohnsior� suggested rounding that are close to the wetiand area. Commisse��e�° I�Iiiler asked the The applicant complied. Comreflissioner �a-asaeariie asked��he ap� � J maintaining aIl safety issues,��.�der io � a r e a a n d t h e w e t l a n d. T h �<�an t ta�� to do what Brasaemle ha � c�uesied °. , Nt� ��is�n was t dt��a�s�d:�hang rr�ee�n� `�c��ul 7. � '; : I'la�nic�'� Case 1�To 51� 243(?��ghway 10 (ON� A��i�ant: AP Mounds I��eizssion Regarding '� �Pt��i�d �uffer Pemt�� ptan e rea l 998. and the to t the �orr�mi c�mers of the paricing iot accommodations. if th�y Gt3ul�i cnodify the drive lane, while th��mount of space between the parking � m� i'�ssion t ha t t hey wou l d ma ke an e ffo r t e applicant told the Commission thafi the consideration at ihe Planning Commission �r4�?�rty} ew Limited Partnership (Anthor�y Praperties) Deveiopment review Stage of the PUI�, Preliminary Plat and a �kie�applicant, AP Mound� View Limited Partnership (A,nthony Properties), represented by Wendell Smith, was present. Directo� Jo�k� gave a brief background as follows: The site in question is located at 2430 Highway 10. Anthony Properties IVlanagement is I: I i Mo�a�eais �Taevv �lan�a�� Corramission E1pr�1 d, 199� �egula�° I�eetsn� - Pa�� 12 proposing to deveIop a 63,000 sq. ft. movie theatec compiex, three 11,000 sq. ft. one- story office buildings, a 5000 sq.fi, restaurant, and a 6400 sq, ft. retail building. Th� movie theater will house 15 separate screens capable of seating 2,18� people. Of the 34 + acres of land available on the site, �.25 acees wiIl be wettand, 16.73 acres w` �be developed green space, with the remaining 9.3 acres beir�g dedica;��d Yo :" ctual building sites. There will be parking for 776 cars. � ,` `�; ��_; ." On May 12, 199'�, the City Councii approved a re��i Compreh�nsive Plan designation of the O`Neil pr��eri; to Mixed Use �'L7D (Commercial and Residentiai;a��se} ��_. �. Generai Concept PCT� was aiso passed that sam� ��re�: A generai explanation of the PUD approval There have been severai changes to the ari�i changes were iisted as follows: 1 2 e? � Parcel B is c T�le friOVle t The number The site, te. � acres. �; Imper��ot��'i , ,�, 35.;� ��e�.t �, � � to �� .��r�c� Th� nor�� plan �i��valks a� � for the public. plan. These a ret�iC sf�� u�ste�c� ��'f�"a restaurant site. � h beer� r�d��rom 2�48 seats to 21 �8 seats. �'.��' .'S�'`'xF..i/ been red��d from 16 to 15. �rea, has,ix��reased from 23.99 acres to 26.03 ;ed from 36.9 percenf of the site area to increased from 63.1 percent of the site area and southernmost driveways on Highway 10 remain on along Highway 10 and along the northern edge of h� 7. Tr�,s�i'�i��Ii�s�res are shown for each of the buildings. 8. T�e ��LTRP storm water ponds have been replaced with one large p�i'% .��I'his is due to the fact that City storm water fram norfih and east of ,, e Jsite will be piped to the new pond to help alleviate existing storm water f-�� '`'roblems in the area. �,�:� 9, Fy Snow storage areas are shown on the plan. "�F �;�> . No access is shown to Long Lake Road as was encouraged as part of the � �eneral conc�pt plan approval. 11. Deceieration lanes are shown on the plan. No action was required by the Commission. The evenings meeting was for in%mnational purposes or�iy. `>i , �i � I�/ioureds Vi�w �lans�Yn� Com�reissa�r� Aprii 1, 199� 1�e �lar I�/ie�tin �� e �3 The floor was retumed fio the Commission for questions and cornmenis. Com�essioner° .Tohnston asked staff if ihe MnDOT approval of the associated traf�ic signal depends on the reatignment oiEdgewoad Road and i�'so how close ��ld the realignment come to City Hall. � ,;�, '`>'�,. I)rrector Jopi�e told the Commission the reali�n projeci at this point in time. He gave no specific The floor was turned over ta the applicant for �era�ell Ssnith showed the Commission an facitities. He told the Commission that the c i� part of the ; of the proposed has been selected. Th� changes that have been made frocn the o�� site, ae�cfi;�� s��ted by Director Jopke, were reviewed. No access on io �tiitr��.o�d ��2 or �,�s��ake Road has been designed into the project. This desi ��mer�� t��ect re, ��i' of working with the neighborhood that had made ii kn � from e�f} oxt �i� ��7�� ct that they did not wa�t the iheater to impact the traffic ;< ng throug�i the�r »�zg�%�irhood. :� .M � `"" y '- The Fire 1Vlarshal's reques��: deR th� cility en �s will be accommodated. These plan changes will be made av��` �'�e at the ��t P1ant� Commission meeting. � � �f�� +�:�e�r expre�s�tiy ��'eir concem that the City has not been given ce from _%�Qr`�'>,<that the t`rafi5c intersections involved with the project have ��,for cott�'��c��trs�� ,,They requested that the applican� f�rnish an ofiicial �'��t.�VinDQ"1=�f. �1�e �ril 1S, 1998 Ptanning Commission meeting. Th��iirre�zt pia� sk��i�vs a sidedialk coming from Long Lake Road to the facility entrance �� also from L�ng'�a�.� �ver to Highway 10 tha� would connect. Siaff feels that they �would prefer to �I�tn�ria,tc the Long Lake Road to the faciiity enirance sidewalk and have a bituminous path.��stead. This change will be shown on all future drawings. � iew was given by $ri�'� �Ie�nd�toek, of SEI, the consulting for the project. Ie�c?��t�l,.��ri�� Brasaemle/Stevenson to continu� the Planning Commission regular meeting of Aprii I, 1998 beyond the 11:00 p,m. c�atoff point. Ayes - 6 j The motion carried. IVays - 0 ,:; �::: �e I�Ioaar�ds �lievv PRar�ning �orr�rni�sion Ap�°ii 1, 199$ lte��a� 1�Iee��ra Pa e 14 '�'e�aclell Sr�ith continued his presentation. C�a�ii°person Petes°son asked staff if they had any outstandin� issues ihat ti�e applicant would need to address before the April 15, 1998 Planning Cotnmission meeting. Staff had no o�atstanding isscaes for the applicant to address. Sev�ra! rr��re�t�ers of #he Plarar�eng Commission, from MnDOT in regards to their acceptance of thi 1V��°a �meti� asked the Commission to hoid a stra of the Planning Commissian's leaning on the pro Commissso�er Obertc indicated his fuil support Coaremissio�er,Tohnstoa� af3�ered his supp neighborhood committees request to no,t � CasrA�issioner 1VIiIEer agreed wit , .,l�oyl appticant she is taoking forward.,�he C��arperson P�ter°son good for #he City and gt :� «;�� w �?e 1��%'ie :o �o��s��Taer ��,��s stl��tled �or cornp��t� �f , �: 1V1�° �e��c�e� �zi�d if'th� ��i°ector J'o��e of the realignme Coezncil at the s� �oanmi the said he T��asket�s�t��,�<��en notificafiion fr�� , � . cilrty's sou ��e�►�z�rt'ce des�gn. � :...y , ji � � � ;� ` c; �, .� : ��. !� io�� e the d�evef��.� ` ti� ,.: �<�y., :.::?.u'/,-. � Vv � u<<,;<;;:;� �:;� ;'�� a /y s �� i�.' �1�'Cl�?C1S�(j �iOJ�Ct. ��z did �xpr��S St�t�a� �ncem with ihe �}� �ure cucb ��bra Long Lake Road. :, A, s,; ; , � � ��e �� ,�sue. �he also told the � corn�t��i��i�� .��...w s�a '��about the project, He added it's ��i�bodv wins. ihe praject and asked when the project was the project by th� 17ih of April, the theaters � t�e �ommission that the paricir�g lot arrangements for City Hal1, part �';.�c�gewood Road, would be considered fbr approval by the City trme the theater project is considered for approval. gave the project his full s�pport. �ioat Iterns The nexi community forurn wil! be held Apcil 8, 199�, 7;00 p.m., at the Edgewood ca%teria. ' �� 9. Ch��rpea°sora arnd P9a��ean� Co��eissa��e�°s' R�po�s ' ;`. �:: � i: . .: :?,; ,: s +- � ': � �.�.. ..:�: .::' -,.: ;: ' . ': ,� � _ Ii��t�ncls �l'aerv PEana�fn� Cor�ermasseor� A��il 1,199� � �i Ite ula�° IVi�et�� Pa e fl5 There were no Chairperson or P(anning Commissioner reports. '� � l0o Adjour�ment io Age�sda Sessi�n There being no fus-ther business before the i�egular meeti�zg oFth��?laruu; ommissi Chairperson Petecson adjourned the meetir�g at 11:24�m. M1�� ;� `� (The Regutar Meefiing adjourned to Respactfulty submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director ;., ; ; ; ; ; ,,. ; . , . . _ , . . _ ' "` i / ,'; ;� Item No. I� . :; ►!► : ► ; � ►� ►�` � ► - �'�`�i.7'�lZ�):�I':1 Me�t��g Daiee �taff Re�o�°t tsya Pla��in� Case I�aa Req�est: Pet�iYOnero PIi� l�os. Zo�fn�/I.and TJs�o ApplBe�ble Ite�ul�tia�so April 15, 1998 Rick Jopke, Community Dev�lapmeni Director 517-98 Development Stage Review, Weiiand Buffer Permit, and Preliminary Plat for the Anthony Properties Managementl4'Neil PUD Anthony Properties Management / L,ouise O'A1ei1 08-30-23-23-0003 PUD, Planned Unit Development / Vacant Land 1. Section 1124.04, Subd. 3 and Section 1120.05, Subd. 2 of the Municipal Code provide requirements far PUD development reviews. 1�ittac��ents: D aft �'lannin Co�nission �Zesoiution Na. 544-98 Pl�a.nning App�icat�on Zoning Map Resolution No. 510� Resolution No. 5119 Ordinartce No. 598 Approved General Concept Site PIan Site Plan, Grading, Drainage, Erasion Control, Landscape and Utility Plans Dated 3/6/98 Thea�er Elevation Drawings 4ffice Elevation Drawings Illustrative Sign Drawings Letter from Julie Ann Olsen Da#ed 3/23/98 Comments from Marlc Bishop, Fire Marshal Comments from Joseph Richter, Minnesota Departrnen� of IVatural Resources Comments from Rice Creek VVatershed District outlining requirements Comments from Rick Wriskey, Forester Comments fxom City Engineer Comments fram Army Corps of Engineers 1 ��i{gY°011ill� o Introduction: The Planning Commission reviewed fihis item on April 1, 1998. The Plam�ing Commission is being asked to malce a recomm�ndation to the City Coiuzcil on April 15, 1998 concerning development sta.ge PUD plan approval. Full public notice has been provided for the April I5, 1998 meeting. The application was accepied on March 17, 1998. T)�e 60 day approval period expires an May 1 i, 1998 unless exiended. Pro'ect Su�rri The site in questzon is located at 2430 Highway 10. The 26.03 acre site is triangular in shape and is bounded by Highvaay 10, Long Lake Road, and County Road H2. The property is owned by the O'IVeil family and is under contract for purchase and developmeni by Anthony Properties Ma.nagement. Ar�thony Properties Management will have a ground lease for the deveiopm�nt and r�ill puxchase the property upon the death af Mrs. 0'Neil. The developer is proposing ta construct a 63,000 square foat 15-screen 21$8-seat movie theater, three 11,000 square foot one� story office buildings, a 5000 square foot restaurant, and a 6400 square foot retail building. The movie theater would be operated by Carmike Theaters. An 8.25 acre wetland would rernain undevelop�d on the site. Tatal green space on the szte after development wouid be 16.73 acres which is 643 % of the total site azea. Impervious area including parking areas and buildings wouid comprise 9.3 acres or 35.7 % of the total site area. Parking for a total of i�6 cars is provided on the site. 82 parking stalls are shown far the restauran� site, 49 parking stalls are provided for the retail si#e, S48 parking stalls are provided for the theater, and 97 parking staIls are provided for the o�ce buildings. Joint use of the theater and office parking is indicated because offsetting hours. Previous Ap�provals: On May 12, 1997 the City Council approved Resoluiion No. 5104 which changed the comprehensive plan designation of the subject site from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use PUD (Commercial and Resideniial Uses). The City Council on the same night gave first reading to Ordinance No. 598 which rezoned the site from B-1 Neighborhood Business and R-2 �ingle and Two Family Residential to PUD for commercial uses. Resolution No. 5119 was also approved on May 12, 1997 which approved a General Concept PUD Plan for the site. Second reading and passage of Ord'znance No. 598 occurred on May 27, 1997. Copies of the approved resolutions and ordinance are atcached for your information. PUD A�roval: There are three steps to approvai of a PUD. These include general concept plan, development stage plan, and finai plan. As indicated above, the city has previously approved a general concept <;,;;} <' plan. The appiicant has now submitted a developrnent siage plan for city approval. 1120.�4 Subdivision 3 of the Municipal Code ouilines the procedu�e for development stage plan 'g approval. The code states that the Planning Carnrnission shall review the p�an and submit a -`'! written report and recommendations to the City Council wiih respect to the conformity oi the development stage plan io the generai concept plan, with respect to the merit or lacic of inerit of ariy depariure of the development stage plan from substantial conformiiy with the concept pla�, and with respect to the compliance of the development stage pla.� wiih the pY•ovisions of this Titl� and oiher applicahle Federal, State and local codes and ordinances. No public hearing before the Planning Commission is required by the Ci#y Code. 1120.04 Subdivision 3f. outlines the review and eval�ation criteria for developmeni stage plans. The following is � summary of staff's review and fmdings: lo AC��I��S�� 1]�°O��i$�/ CQI'i�l'O� IS �Di°OVl(IC(� to �D�'O��C$ t�l� 1I1d1d1Silia� ��Yl�i'3 1'dgllt� and }�rop�rty val�es a�d ��e p�abiic �°esponsibil�t� f�t° o�v� m�i�te�ance and upl�eepo Bofh the develaper and the property awner h�ve signed the applicaiion. The developer will be leasing the property and will purchase the properEq upon the death of the owner. The PUD will provide adequate requirements foz mai�ntenance. Cri�er�a I�Iet j 2. 'Th� e�ter�mr circ�latio� pian plu� ac�es� f�°ona ana� o�to public t°i�hts of vvay does �� not sr�aie �on�es#aott o�° da�gers a�aai is adequa�e for the ��%� of t�e pr�ject res�den$s a� ��e general �ublic. The interior circulation plan and access are adequate. Some adjustment of the width of the accesses are necessary to meet the Fire Marshal's concerns. The addition of the signal and the provision of the right ium in and right tum aut only access on Highway 10 are important for safe access to the siie. The access to Highway 10 on the resta.urant site is less important. All access on�to Highway 10 is subject ta approval of MnDOT. C�°iteria 1V�et 3o E1 sufficfent a�ou�at of a�sab�e open spa�e is provid�do The type and amount of open space provided is appropriate to the type of develapment propased. Th� open space serves to provide buffers to adjacent residential uses and to protect the existing wetland on the site. 64.3 % of ihe site is green space which is adequate. Crite�°ia 11i1et i 4e T'%e a�•ra�ge�ent oi b�ildings, st�-u�ctures, and �ceesso�y uses doe� not unreaso�ably disturb the pr�vacy or pt°o�e�°fy vaiues of ti�e saa�°rou�dra�g r°eside�iial uses. The Iocation and arrangement 4f buildings on the site shown on the plan is consistent wi�h the appxoved concept plan and will not unreasonably disturb the surrounding residential uses. Sufficient buffers will be provided. Criterea Ii�et 5. �'l�e archrt�cturai de�i�a� o�the projecr is compatible v�ith tbe surroundicag area. The architecturai design of the project is compatible with the sLU�°ound�ng area. The design of the office bniidings is residential in character. The office structures are single story with gable and hipped roofs. The design af the theater, restaurant, and retail buildings are appropriate for buildings along Highway 10. C'r�teria M�� 6. The draanage a�d e��i��ty �ysterra pla�as are sub�i�ied to and subjest �o the apps°mval oi tt�e I)frecfior of ��bl�e �or°l�/City En�i�eero The drainage and utility pians have been submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer subjec� fo modifications outiined in the attached April I3, 1�998 memo from Rocky Keehn. - Crite�i� lo/Iei ' �i ; io 'I'h� develope�ent scl��dule insna�es a I�ga�ai de�veiop��ni of t�a� sate w�hic�a will prot�ci the publie i�nterest and co8se�°ve laa�d. The Developer is proposing to complete grac�ing at one fime to facilita.te development, minimize infrusian on the surrounding neighborhood and to minimize cosis. Construction of the theater will begin immediately upon City approvai, with the construction of the most easterly office building to foltow. The construction of fihe remaining structures will begin when tenants are found and leases are signed. Consiruction of screen fencing and landscaping of buffer areas should occur in the first phase to minimize the impaci on the adjacent residential area. Criteri� IVIef �. 'I'he deeelopapent fs i� coffip�ea�nc� wxt�a the r�q�ireffienis of Ch�pier 1010 a�d '�'rtles 1�00 anci 1300 of this code. The deveioper is propasing to subdivide the property. In accordance with Title 1240, the subdivision wili be considered a major subdivision. Therei°ore, Ciiy approvai af a preliminary and final plat will be required prior to the issuance of pezxxaits for more than one building on the site. The developer has appiied for plat -' 4 � �� ) approval and is in the process of completing the preiiminary plat drawing. The plat will have to be approved separately ft°om the PUD. The proposed development wiil encroach on the wetland buffer area required in Title 1300. The developer has applied for the necxessary wetland buffer permii as per ordinance requirements. C�iteria l�I�t �Jpo� Ci�y Appt°oval �f tme Plat �nd �etla�xd �uf%� Per�if 9. D�vellin� unii ��d a�cessory use req�aia°�ffients are in co��liance �itl� t�e distr�ct provisao�s i� which the cdeveiog�►ee�# is planneei. There are no dwelling units proposed as part of this development. Accessary uses include parking and trash enclosures and are in compliance with district provisions. Criteri� 1VIet Plaix Changes: The foilowing differences exist between the proposed dev�iopment stage plan and the approved general cancept plan as outlined in Resolution No. 5119: 1. Parcei B is designaied as a retail siie instead of a restaurai�t site. 2. The movie f.Yieater seating has been reduced from 2648 seats to 2188 seats. The number of screens has been reduced from 16 to 15. 3. The site area has increased fram 23.99 acres to 26.03 acres. 4. Impervious site area has decreased from 36.9 % of the siie area to 35.7 %. Pervious area has increased from 63.1 % of the site area to 64.3 %. 5. The northernmost and southernmost dxiveways on Highway 10 remain on the plan. 6. Sidewalks are shown alang Highway 10 and along the northern edge of th� wetla.nd. 7. Trash enciosures are shown for each of the buiidings. 8. The two NURP stormwater ponds on the south side of the site have been replaced with one large pond. This is due to the fact that city stormwater from north and east of the site wi11 be piped to the new pond to heip alleviate e�sting stormwater problems in the area. An additional pond wiIl be constructed north of tbe we#iand far the restaurant site. 9. Snow storage areas are shown on the plan. I0. No access is shown to Long Lake Road as was encauraged as part of the general �oncept plan approval. 11. Deceleration lanes are shown on the plar�. 12. Lzghting Standards on the theaier portion of the site are shown as 40 feet high instead of 24 feet tali. 13. Exterior Insulation Finish System (EIFS) is shor�m as an an exterior maierial on a portion of the theater buiding. The approved concepi plan mentions only bricic, split faced biock9 or stone. 1 i E�11R�y315: Staff has reviewed the propased development stage pian and has found that the development stage plan is generally cor�sistent with the approved concept pian. '�axiations for the most part are improvements to the plan and will not adversely affeci adjacent properties. The excepiion would be that the higher light sfandards may be more visibie from the adjacent residential areas. The staff has alsa found that the proposed development stage pian meets the criteria for approval listed in i 120.�4 Subdivision 3f. Reeo��endatflo�ao Siaff recom�nends approvaI of Resalution No.S44-98 recommending City Cour�cil approval of a PIJD development stage plan with s#ipulations for the Anthony Properties / O'Neil development at 2430 Highway 10. Rick Jopke, Community Development DirecYor N;IDATAIGROUPSICOMDE'VIDEVCAS6S1471-971517-98. PC2 , <�_ �1� , ,C ,. . �:. ; � �: ,,, �', �; . ., �; ,�; �; - .: �i _ r ;: :�': ; �' . '�. �; �.. � �; �. ,f : ,� : '', <�' � : , . "��'� ��. � �- �= '_. '+. • ; _, :�� : ; 1`; , ': . : '�� 1' ' �: _� , . ;_ � ��. �� ..�. ; ? �: �; � i; • � f; :�: �, ; �` �� '1: ��_ � ` �- , ; , , : � � . ; � � �� ;_ _� � �� . •: �_ _ � l `� � 1' � �: �� ' i: ►� ' ! ��, `, •� ', �= � �f� � .1 ° . ; ; �� 1; . � � . � �: .•; �I�IEREAS, the O'I�leil property is described as foilows: Pa�°t l�in� southwesieri� of centerl�ne oi ST�i I�too 10 �f �outh�es# 1/4 of raort��est 1/4 (s�aF�jecf to �°o��ls, l��hr�vay and eas��e�fs) in Secti�� O�, �'owns�ap 30, Ran�e 23a W�iEREAS, Aa�.�hany Properties Management, Inc. and Louise O'IoTeil have previously applied for and the City has approved an amendment of the cornprehensive plan designation of th� O'Neil groperty to a Mixed Use PUD; and, VdHEREAS, Anthor�y Properties �Ianagement, Inc. and Louise O'IVeil have previously � applied for and the city has approved a rezoning which changed th� designation on the O'Neil Froperty from B-1 (neighborhood comffiercial) and R-2 {duplex residential} to Planned Unif Deveiopmen� (PUD) for the development of commerciai nses and a PUD general concept plan; and, WHEREAS, in accardance with Chapter 1120 Of i�le MOUTIC�S VieW Mt1Il1G1�7a� COC�� Antlaony Praperties Managernent, Inc. and Louise O'Neil have applied for appraval of a PUD development stage plan approval; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Comrllission has reviewed the following documents: * Site plan, grading, drainage, erosion cantrol, landscape and utility plans by Sunde Engineering, dated 3-6-98 * Theater elevation drawings * Off'ice elevation drawings * Memoran.dum from the City Engin.eer (Rocky I�eehn), dated 4--13-98 * Memorandum from the SEI� dated 3-3I-9� * Fax from Che Fir� Marshal (1Vlark Bishop), dated 3-3-98 * Letter from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, dated 4-7-98 '� Letier from fihe Ie//Iin3neso�a Dept. oi Na�iaral Resources, dated 3-26-9� � Memorandum fram City Forester (ilick Vdriskey), dated 3-31�9� � . :::: , ;; ;:: ;: ; ;: ;..; - -- ------- --- _,_,: ... - ;> � Planning Commission Resolution No. 544-98 April 15, 1998 Fage 2 �TEREAS, the Planning Commission fimds that ti�is proposal meets the purpose and intent of Planned Unit Developments as stated in Section 1120.01 of the Mounds View Muraicipal Code in that the proposal has planned the overall developmer�t of this property and included an appropriate mix of uses which compliment each other, and wili add to the vitality of tige Ciry Center. Requirements have been inciuded to insure high quality archiCectural deszgn and coordinated signage. The substantial wetlat�d on the properiy will be preserved, and consideration will be giv�n to pr�serving the tree cover on this parcei outside of development areas wherever possible. �IHEREAS, the Pianning Commission finds that this proposal meets the general requirements and standaz°ds for Planned Unit Deveiopments {Section 1120.a2) through the stipulations established in Exhibit 1 to this resolution. W�IEREA�, the Planning Commission fznds thaC this proposal meets the special requirements and standards for commercial PUDs (Seciion 1120.Q3 Subd. 2) as follows; Minimum Project Size IVlinimum Street Frontage Mi�umum Property Width Rec�uired Provided S acres 26.03 acres 2�0 feet 1690 feet 200 feet I280 feet WHEREAS, the Planning Commissian has found that the proposed PUD development stage plan is generaily consistent with the approved PUD generai concept glan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the proposed PUD development stage plan meets the review and evaIuation criteria found in 1120.04, �ubdivision 3f.af tlae Mounds View Municipai Code. N�W, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ivtounds �Iiew Plazuung Commission does hereby recommend thaC the City Council approve a PUD development stage pla� dated 3-6-9�, for the 4'Neil properry, 2430 Highway 10, and as described zn ExY�ibit 1, attached hereto and iricorporated herein by thzs reference, and subject to the following stipulations: 1 � 3 That the Iandscape plan should be amended to inco�porate fihe changes suggesteci by the City Forester in his 3-31-98 memorandum. A final Iandscape plan should be submitted for approval by the City Forester. That the site plan be amended io ir�corporate the changes suggested by S��I in the memorandum dated 3-31-98 and the comments from the Fire Marshal. The site plan submitied for PUD final plan approval should include the chan��s. The d�°ainage/utilities plan should be amended to eliminate the City storm sewer systerrt on the property as per the memorandum from Rocicy Keehri dated 4-13-9$. The -�i _ ; , ,; , - Plannin� Commission Resolution l�to. 544-98 ` ; April i5, 1998 Page 3 ;; � `� drainage/utility plan submitted for PUD fuial plan approval shouid include th� changes. 4. The light standards on the theater portion of �iie site should no[ exceed 24 feet in height. 5. Prelimi.nary and final plats in accordance wieh Title 1200 of the Niounds View MuFUCipal Code must be approved by the City prior to the issuance of pezrnits for more than one building on the site. 6. City approval of a wetland bu�FFei permit in accordance with Tiele 1300 of the Mounds View �iiTunicipal Code. 7. AppYOVaI af ihe reqtzired pelrmmit f'rom the Rice Creek Watershed District. �. Approval of the permits from 1VInDQT for the accesses onto I�ighway 10. B� IT FURi�iER RESOLVED that the �iilaunds �Iiew Plannin� Commission d'urects Staff to forward this Resolution to Yhe City Council prior to approval oi tiie minutes. Adopted this 15th day of 1�pri1, 199�. AT'TEST: (SEAL} N:1t7ATA1GROUPS\COMDEVIDEVCASES\471-97\PCRES2. ZON Jenry Petersan, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director � � � o �i� � � aW oQ �� a� �p o � a � � � � C � � 0 N > � 0 C � a a� c G ca � � .� N � O � � i .� O � N � � � N � � � � M � c � N N � � � r � in � �, o !II � N O � d O 00 � N c'� � cxo E � � a° � Q � '�" CD � � � t�! Q 0� U U �� a� c"�a � L � .> Q � � c�p C ` � � U U) � � C � U .� � �tb � � f� � � � o � � � .� '� �� ro � U v`�, � � a �' "�, c.,.,,0 O p o� b U U cp '°° d � o i v � � � b ro �� `ro a��iro"`�� .�`�,' � ai � � u�, Q ��N � ��] a� � � � � RS � �e' � � m -� ca 4� ° ia a� ro � ,r� u�h� �� .� � cd ��.., � � � O d � o L � .�°� p � +.�. � o � $ � � j � � � 0 ,� a>a�c�aa3�� •y .�a C a� � � .� � �-c o� a`m ro "�.�°yoa�v `' �� ,� i � ` c�v �'�o��.�.Ce�4. o �b• �, �'~ a� �� j� � �� •V � � y U � � � �-Q-4 � �.�� i O � � � � � O � C � � .C� p� C a1 �-� �` O Q U �P3 aS � � � E O C C � � � O � � � � � � �. U1 L � c0 � � � � � � � "1� � � � � N �. cYl � O CO � � �. � � ; � � � � � � N � � � N cU N �3 � � � ` ` �. � U U U U(} V U U t6 (n t6 fII f0 (� � (B O�('P3LO05(l��C7 �'MCJNI`�CJNO hrrw-(�j�ODCD N `[3 N � � .� �3 � � � � Q (� � a.. � ��r°NMQm ��= � � � � � N (B � U U U C} (� +, � ,i � � � f0 (6 � O �-OOO�o_��- � � o r U N � � � � .� � ^ � .;A O C � � O � O vS r t� . N O -0 Z C � c� � � � � � � o � �� C � � � � � o N y, U Q% � � � � � � _ � �� 'f1��C"i r- � O �+ . L�° � � � � � �� J � � � � d � � 3 � �.. , � �O � � z � �, � � Z '-'� � o v] ��,] U a` C'� p (w o � � a � C3 � � W � o � � � � Q � � � � ! � �: Q' `'; � � � H W � P-, O W � � � � � � � �� a � o � � � W � � � � N R+ E-+ � �� O � � W � 'Q ,/E,.� �.] � � A O � � .� � � � c c� � C b U � °a m � � N � � � U � ti � .� C O � C � o�� ,O mX � �, � � � ,� � 4 � � � � e.� �' � Q f�fl � cn � � �i Q � �y U r � � � � � a � ? `� �- � r t4Y � � Cry O � � �� f.� O � o O � � � � � � CT �`�w tq u� �n � o �"u�°�o QO '�° N �' � � e L v � L °1 N � N � � (D ��.�.�.� C2. � � U U U � U � (� f0 (� -� fd � aQ�,� C1. �� -� �r � � � � c� L � � v � � c�t .� � � W � �° o � � o a ti � M � N � � � � � 00 � M CQ N � � c� m � � � O � �y � � .� �� Q�3 � � cUII tUD N �° f� � � � � � � c8 � � �Q � � -ta � �a '� (� � � � � �� a�o� b � ro 0 � � � � O ,� a �' � � ,� ro � � � � �°�o � � � � � � O.. � � � O '� m �� @ �� Q O .0 °p � � j � � � .� � � O B Q Q:� � � � Q� � �� Q- � c � � � ti � s � � O ��'. • ., � � �� C � N �o�� m a� � � ��ca '� C ,U 4 � � O � a�� o� � � C o g � ti '� y�� "� a��5 � U � � O p � b � 41 a Q�� U-G2 4 � � � � � °� � (iS .� N ��C�a.�. �.QU��a� � � � .� � � � ro � � � � � (a �,� �� t� '� t��a o � +�.. co �" C� N ro � O � 4 �� o � � � B �� Q�oa� �� •�� '� � -4 �- ��-�c�'i� � �� ro �... c0 � O �. ^ ` � � � � � a�i � � �� c '� '� � � � � � � OQC�O �Mrt?aP'N cti � � � � � � C�3 � � � � O C� � O (p �A�� 'j �� c ' �o 0 ��U� U � C � � �, o �, � �� O � � fi � � r" � � � .a, �B � U ,C �xa�� w c� ca � � .fi � � b b ,N C � o U �� c o a � C�°� "� � � � � � ��a p C �� 0 � � � � N � � � a � y �' � � � a3 � a� � ` � Q ro �� C�@ f0 0� 27 � � � � C � � O-0��C �= � v.. C � � � � � Q.' � � � �� a K'�.. +°, (n � a� o �-��w � � � � � w �� o �� ''�� .� •� ��v-a c4O�b�� e G i � � N `� O O O � r � N (� C Q .e.1 � e� � �, .� G i� °�s � ` om� � � � � ii1 � � � � c� � .,��, � � e � c c� 4 a� � c� � t�/) U � U Q � �U N '" � � � � � � � Q � Q � � ,O � m � � � B � o '`° � � � � c� � a. ° W� L —� Q �� .. r: . . •,,:. � N � � w� Lj o � ��— � � � U � � > X � � f� o�� - �-�L�� '—Q O� � U � � � � � � v Q=,�U -� � �, � � � � � � L • � � � C !!1 � � � G (SS Q�., �- Q Q L�. �' � � � N � � �-�C� c � V .� f� G = d G � Q �� .+ m.a � U U � t� � � L � — w O � � � '� t� � � � � � U �� ° o o � E s�..:�.:� � �� a �000�a� ��nus�> � �— � � N G� C7 7 ��° L � C .� .� .� � � � Cj��o�»� ��„,�NQ � 2 � �� C �, � � U � �� , � ro�� a � �� (0 y ,C •�. Um``' � m .e'°' o� � a� � o��,c� Nasm � �� v� o O � ,� � � � �� O•� �� s � � � � 0 ��'ti �� N •U � � � Q � C C fi ca � O ,O -� -= � q� � � w � � � y � � � �ie.q .p � � � � � C � � C � � C -� O � b � � � � � ro Q � ��a� �'m.o �� c� � � � ro��o �,.�w m� �� o� c�a � �� i�=,��v' � .�a �. a� :� � i � I � � ' � ' � z 'z r o � � � � � � � � U U � [w o � U � � W W � � � � U O � � s � O � � � � � � ,� W a d W � � � �o W � "�w � � O ,� � cv r� � O �i Oe�v� � � �a O � "a a � OA � H � � � Q O � � � a � � � � � c�°�c �a� �� .�.� a� a�o� ��a�i� �� `a�� a�c�� - cu � � o :� cn o '` "-' ¢� � ` A ct� a� � (0 � � Tj � � N � � U � � � � .O° ,b � � � � �, � p t� � � � (� O � � C � � � (� � �^�j � � o � � .~ wL-• � U � � � � �7 � � � � � � �.��.c �,c.��U �,�oi�N�•� v�o.oao�� O � � � � tp � a� � � � � �� {� � i O s- • U O � � .Si � � � (n �° � � � � C li {B � } ±' C� j p � C C � � � fn A � � (n ' � � C � .� ' U ?� � C � L A 4 f0 � � � � t0 �-- � � � � � � .0 N � +.�v. — p � U � -p (S �. U � � � � � � a Q -� c c� � , � y, a�. �. �,> �� '� �.�cN�ow.o' �a�� V�'��pXj �.��o'c�o°o w � >~� �'�.�-c c� U � � � Ns � �o �^a� � c �`� aGi O c o ca � E •� c ..� �. . � � °a C � Q. � � j 'C � � � �. p p � � � � ' � O p `�-- � � , C '� � � (6 O W � � � Q � U � � � � � .�� U (� C > j � � � � C -Cj � � � � � QS C �, (s i°' � > � a. °� °p �°' � � -=� � U ..'-. � j r� �� 10 ��(� CY1 (3 O� O` N U �. � O N V1 �+-' � o C U a� � '� � � � � `r c� � !° � Q' � � � � � t/� � � a U c� � LL -C vm > (B � > � (� (D ' ` C � v3 c� � (B � � f2 py' j-- (U a� � 6 � �i .0 � � ro U � .� � � � (Ni� o � � � � s � V1 9 O Uo! � ` � O �' �� o � � a`� �� ,¢ �`"-.v ct� uy Q-C-a r��n vU �'� � d c�i1 N � � � � cQ vs � � � ip '� 4- � � � p � � ,� � �, v � � 'C Q � � � d � � A L � . ` � � (D � Y a-+" � U � -p Q? �a.�°' � N �+ o � � � Q �-p O � Q�� 'O �� .�� Q� UO � � � O �� C � C �- � ,G � '�C � � C o .� „� � �y C� � � � � Q- � � j .� g b° � � � E � (A �° ` N v � � "Q ¢+ O U �� i � �Q� � O�� O� � � Q�� Gy � 9 � ea as x � c � �, v �.. � a� � � � 4% � ,��, � � .� �j c0 � � � »-� v � � � �� L � � � � � � Qf C � � � � u�i fQ � � � � O � � o � '� � � � U '� � � � f0 � � (� �uJ ° E � �-° �O � ° ° a� a� � � � Q-� � � a � � � �'o� ��-° � o � �- = ° E -� � a� si > r � � °- a� c� ::r �s �- •u� � °� '�. � .v � � � � aa o o c� �.. �n a o� m v� .� , u� � cu N ' ��.c n� rr� �� cn c��. ��ca�.�a.�cac�ci�-r�.�Rt 1-��°ia�o�c°� ��'rscno� -o � � `n p c a �, ° � a� c ��Q � � �� ,�o � —�o �cCOC� Q vai�a.�c�a�m � a�i�Qcu� �o �+ p � �- = � � � i ' � o � � � � � � � ti .e.L. L�, fg Q O. ,eJ O� � � �� L � � �� U aa a� � �G� �� .�s� �-� >�°n �C �-°cva>,E��°��` vn.o�w`°a3i Xm a�ooc�ia �roc�'v�o�°p° -°a�`��oac a�C �,�rn� Q� c��«� a� o � c�•° � c'� p m � o� � � � �� > � a� ro � �u, L,� �; � a� �� ,nr� � c�o a� c o� �� .n� Q. C o c� � o.a•s= ti � �:r?�� v�°�mc�v.c�.c�� i��a°o� �o -°XCaa�� ,o.n>-��oN�v, `°-��aroia`"i— �e.� � W � � �- � � � C -° o ° � o � c c c c�a u�i � � -� � v L `� �n.5 c a�i ° � o� � v � �.ca � � o'�= a,N� � `� ��?" � a� o � � a�i �°> > �-� o `� °� C � U�.� � °> o � v9 � �� a�ay,�� a� no a� � �� c� �-"=$ �� c� � N U �� N o°�= �� g o v o c a� ��.❑ � � �C�s o �� ,� o �„� ��—� o o. � B v�']'i v v� � �� 4� 4° v e a o a a% � e•"-' � C c� � � dy a) � � � �•� ��.t O� O�� Q�-� � �Qq3 � � a �� (Lffi �g � "� � �3 Q. {� R7 O� O C � '� � � � .n � V � (B � '°`° � � � �� r4 ��*� f9 L �.. r� � V� U>+ U� i� � N v � o � � fn � o VJ fA 'O tl � O � � � �j �. (6 O � U = � � O � � � � � � � w � � O � � Q � � ` (� � � U � ' °� C `O U C G f� cLf p� � � O U � C � ' C � ` � O L � � G O � � � '� °� � � fll a:r C .w C � � � � y� � N � � � :� :" (LS �' �— � O � fl, °� � .�. C ('� � � (S3 O .� � U > Q C> � (Oi � L.i � a.. � � O � ` � tll ` � � �' � � � � N Q � O o� ��°, � � �''�� ° ; v a�a � �`�� u� � �°�,� � ca �� i o c�� a� o m� �n�� O ��"Q o� �`� � N vi ��'2 a�.a- Q} L� �� v cn ng C C�� '-� U i3 C U"-' � u�i � C N�� . � � C � p o � C ? � f6 � � � � �° O � � 6.° (U � t� � � � � O � U � �.. � +' O p� G g' ` � O .p V � °° � � U f� �S 8,� IUJ � �l �% � O C� U��. c� �� fl. � tB L C��-� C.� � o O � aa � � � � v � � � � o Q � � c � c� � > c3 ��.� ca� � t� o vc11Q��.-�°CJ c� �. � ��t� c°a� u�i �� em� c�u � � � � �O � Z ,z - �� Z � W � UC/} � w �O � z � � �`Q `-i a � U a W W O } �" r/i �"' � � o � � � � � � � � G� Q �� _. � a �, d � W a � � Q � � � � � � a � � w � c� � � � C� � N G1a � � �O �� W � �`°. W �j A a � � O A � � �a � .� � �s m� � ° � � o � Ce��.,``� �' •� .� c � � ai � �,�� " Q � N � �� c � c o, � � uf � a� �. a� �� "� tB p � � U � .� tn � � O � � •� � ;� � � � U � QS (� (� O � � � � � t� ` ` � "� �, � � L a.e f� O � � .� � � Ll�. � li) C � �� c �a�'ca� °� n� '� � v L C a�i � � �s •� � ° 'ca '� w � � >+� N � � o i �= � � tB i ��--�,� c� ca � vy e� O (ry � � ro � > ��-° � � � a � � r � � � � Q' � -�w '°'° % � fA .� � � Q9 � �� '� O C �� L. . � � (9 td1 �% � � L t� � � � o� ` E � �. ��•� �r��o � � a: � � •- ca � � c� a� � O �� L ��c�'o�a�a•C� �.r v� �a� �� a�o°� Qa'i �+.. �� n.C� � � 0 L7i c ,�L (6 Q. � t 'D G f� > U � C 0 U ` � N O (B � �1 � 'L � � � N g � � � a "C7 a C � (� 'x � .� Q.-� � � � � U � � � � � � � ,v_� �, � � � co�� N�� p Q � � � � o Q� � � +°� U V � � � (i �� o� ��.� �� '��c�o � � � � � � L, �. U � � U QP O `� o ,C � � �' � (�0 � � � � Q°° 'O � � � O � � � � � � "� � � u� i�3iv � �Z � ca� � � :�oo��o �ce.��c � m a� -o a� a� �� a � � � a? • � � i ��c�E�ro•,� . a� � � � �- .,_. �N� �� - o� �� .r � v3 � �.e. � c u� �" � s � v� ai 5' � o aa v� ,� �° c� G � � � �� ,� � � � ��?��c�aeo�va� '��wo N'�� a��-� �� c o �:`� o-��o� c��> �� sc.rcmca��o ��a�� o � c�o�"a��°�� o�� ?'� v � �-O c�'� �� aa ° a� � � °� O � U °� — � O > � � ffl � f� $ L2. C�� L Q- �� f6 •Q � .a.� .� o f8 � � � � O � o i U � � � � � � � � � o C � � � N cCa��°�o�� a°�ai�'sz �n �v��a�� >U ac- .�� Q��Q� a� ._ � � �, c a� '`v`vi��--ca` ��'�Q � G�� L]. U a- dJ U tn �� N � � '� '�} � � N � .�a'. (�,3 � � � � o � t�6 = s�.. �'� N � � "d � � o <�� -a � � C � � � � � C � C � '�3 � : (0 .� � +" ` � a � ' � O � N � � � � f6 � o :F°' 11 (p 0 � �° � U � � � C `� � tO � o � � 8- •� � O � � �i �"O �^ L Q�-�� '�1'� � � � a�'i� � ° �� .� o �� ,G us °°` � o� c� o a� ��r�a-u,�� c�� N c A� �� e�a�a +n o� U� o�� o�y ��. c�P o� o-� c��.� v�� v E Q,� a� �,�,_ ��° �� c � a � � y � � � � � i a��H c� a� Na��°Q°��,�v��o�� vs� Q>cusQa��- a� o ca �� a��•��c`i� a�'i� �'a�°� c U°� Q-` .� a- � r.+ � t� ��-' a� Q.❑ c� � � B � L � h L � Qi � o � � � � � � N O 0 0� � c� ��. �=°a� �, � r Q. � t� O(n �� In � � C � � � � � � � d � N � � � iJ tB (D'� � .G � V i'�'' � C�E � � � (�!1 � Qx3 i� � +�+. � �p ii� >� � � � �'� o � �-� . � � �� +�.U� �� O a � C •� � � � �'� •� '� �` C s-. O = i6 0 � � ¢l O � ` O a, � � � � � � (q �" Q � (� � j .i � � O � � � � � � a� G � 0.1 Q3 � � Ol o (� � � N c4 � � � ^ ❑ w�- °• C � U o � � � (n � � �tn w- O� tA U i= � C Q� fe ' � CO �. � fB � (0 ;;� � � Ul � � w � 45 ��, _°° Q. � Q t� ...,. tB �: d'a � fn N � �°° � � � � � O � � CL � � . � L � o a � V (�A C `+�° "� tQ� °j-,p�0 (B Q)UC •ae >+ t� � � � � aa= � (49 (B � (� � � � Q� d- `° Rf7 � � � O CO N 'p � � o � � �°'° � C p(0 UJ �+°" e L �> t� Q C I� � �.�5• �. (ll•sW � � �. � � � � O � � � � $ �% o � � � � � � � y'° � v � � � � � c0 ��- � � v.�,� � � � ' ; t� � � � � ..� � Vf � a (0 � U Iq � cn � � � (0 � � � o w� � � �, t� C � � a � � � � � � U1 � � (b liS O N � (G � � U � � o � 6l � � U O � � � � � �8 � � U � � t9 � f� U � (� U3 Lt � s ca � +:. C � � � � N � � i7 � � � � � B �� tC � � � � � 'd � � � � � U � O .� L � O � � � � U O � � � ffl m-. � � (Si � � i � � � io • o � � � >+ ° • � e�► o� ,� �C tA (� ��. � C a% C,= w G � u1 � Q} 6. UJ � � � `p � •N .w � O � � U U i � � � w- � � ,r,0 N (n � -..� � � � O }° � � � G V � tO Q Q. +,�',, ��.� t� Qy °� ` d=° 03 C+.� � Q3 � ��;nQCOC�.�.�� o � O � � � � � Q � � � C L � O Q � � � � � s�-. �- o p � �+ (� (�j � � � � O Q� �� '� �A � U � iG � � � L � � �� f� �i � n. � � o C � � tn "� L �� C O � al � � � � � C � f� 'v � � � Q .a.. � . �'�-� � ?r� >, �p� �: t� d�� 4 �� ry Q3 �� i � � � `a- ffi � �. o � q�j � � i O r � � � � C � ` � �, �' C� � � U I �� Q- a.Q�. � � C2" L� � Q Q� � L�.. C U � � Q? � �, ` � (A � � � � � � ,��, � (fl � 'o � � , � � t � ' � � � � � � � � � fn U N � o -0°' � (j �° �� ..�.. p V � _ � � G �� °� u1 � o vti'.. �� R p� O �$ � � , � N� �AU� Ci tB '` O N� C C� Q? � ,� � � � '� � p� � C g � e� � •� � � � Q � � � o _t� (Li � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 7 � �� °Q QO.,�i��.��° �� m � ' z � O � � �� U � o �� U �� a L� 5 0 � � � U � W � � � � � � � Q O � aa � Q � � a 0 � Q � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Q (� � � Ra !.� i H � t'°' � � � �W OW aA �� zq O� R, w� � O .� O � O � � v � U � �C71 ,C C � — IU (B � i G � � �� o > � c� � �� U � �s � � � o � a a � � G � � U � � .� L � �� cu�m ` [ o � s � � � C � ..� U Q � Q � V �O � t� O � .�G ca � m C Q J .� QJ � a, � e .� � � O .-. N � i 0 � C � � � C N � .� '� � w � � � � � v � � Q � � � � a-- `� .` � �U� � � •V'� ��o� � � � � � �� ,�,. � °,� , ca °� � j O � � � � C9 ` � � �� o �� J o �, cu � 'C � O � � � � � � Q � t� o �� d � � � � � � � � w O � � � � � U � � � � � ` � w�.. � � � � � A 'a .e-° � S � Vi "� '� O �� tC tB C.��.. � C� vj � v3� � f0 �•-. � � � Q U � � � � (S7 Q- � N � � �- � � C .w � y � �3.� U C O �m,-O � U � � � � � L 'n r�i� G u� �. N o�' t i � � t C o �. O � � .� � � cn � N � Lu,o� �� ° e�� a� � ��w- � w: � � cn � c N .c C � � • •� � L � � 'C7 j .w . V u��'�cn�-u�.� � �Is—� � � �= � cB � � � � �. � .cs � � � � 4.� = N Y � C� "tl �. �ry Q � � N U � N � � � � Q � � � P/1 � o .w U e (n � E��v°�.S,cvc�o as o� c� ca G� � Q� C �a > � � � � i o ' � � � � � U N � � j N� U�� i7 �� 4�� ` L p j G3 $°° � � � � � � U fl) �. � U U C � � E L8� .G (17 � O � � � t� � � �'- � l>. Ca (0 � � � U1 � � � � � c •� c� �c� °� � � 'N �° � N �Q`a�a�~c Q, Qoi�T�..�co C O � � C � � � � G p •� C� f� � � � L (� � pe � '� Q'�� C �� C7� L � � � �� o •� � V .� � � � L!J � � G O . � a � u7 � C2 O Q? °C7 A �3 � C � = G � �'O � Na�o�Uo�°�a�� '��w � � .e.-• s� � - +�. o Q� � � � � O � � � � C � � C •� � � t� � �(� (fl U (ll •�L >+(U >• L � � �,. u) � O (n � � N w � � C u3 Q � �p � � aJ . .�.�� L ��•��,�.�° � ��`��,° � � � �f0 ��+�. N � � o N � � � � � � � � � � Q� (/7 wd � � � -av � t� '� i3 C (n � CU r/1 � s (II � o � � � � � 0 � v ` �. "Q il � A �w� "t3�0� �N— �C 4 '�Q.�� Qr-� � �� Za��v �° O C U) N � p � � > � � � .fC CU � C �� O Q.1 W5 O(n �, � t� a � � a 0 a � � vi � Q � c � � � 0 �•- "C7 � G .� .� -� � c� A� � 9 t6 � O .O U� C ..� SB �%1 � �. �Qi � � �. c� o •� O � � � � � U N � L � � A � = y, � tJ9•C � � 'C � .� (U CnQ� � `.� � � o � fl'� . a W � u1 G � � � o � (� � C � � � V � � C o `p � � (d � N� � � �� > aav °�a�i'� a.c s� c �- � � v I— �°Q•�-�c�� G C6 � L U1 a'�.. O � � .d �as,��v �s, ��aao�.��C � ��o'`=��o tA � U3 � O (A Q Qf�Ct �w t9 (� (� '°'°' �+ � C A � � � � � � � ��saU � � c'o�"�� N�s � p � � � c C w. •� >., � o �p � l0 Q � � � N � .0 � � � . ��.i2C�� Q..� O C4 O� tA iB I� L° U� L� U r°' V3 Q. �� q) p� rn N N � � �'� � V � E"" (B U O (O � � � � ` o � �' � � � �Q � a� — 'p°o O�� NU � c")� �'p� i �+ � �� W�� % � �'� � p�� a � C N Q.�� Q �`-' p �� C � � fif w Vf (� U � � � .� � � � 5+ � -Q � U�a�iCay QE� U��.�o� � v � � � � (f) U � � � N � � � _ �� O u1 C � � � � � � � � .� � � t� � o � d � � � Q Q � �ci.�...LU� `..� =�c�c�c "-°�c � � � � V � U � � � � � � L � � Q f0 O � (� p w w•�• O � � � � u � � � � � > � � � � � � � � � � ,� O � C L. (!� � � � fLf Q � � � � '� :� � � � c�Ciu�� ca� � � � � C � � � Y ` � � � � � � Q �� 4? � � p '� � Q Y � � ,C � � � � � v � m � � C w.�.. (% U (� o O � � N O .0 � � � � � � � L� � ` �.,r i c�cc�o �<t3.�� Q �i� fD °- o ..c v� s q) �j �' U (n � � '� � o i]. U e�� 'o. f° � o a? � � � G d, �y � � .� i t!� C O .� '� O � f`7 � fl � � ��°�o U � .O +. � ` � Q � � � �. � � O � � C -� �? �• � •C � R7 � � � � � t � > O O i"" N (u �., cn o � � �� c� ��°�°~ �� so.d�a� •� C V �3 C � tO f� 'QJ '� ,L � N � t � � 9..�� .0 � � � � � � � �i � � i ln fe �.� w °" A � — fn `� �i (�0 � t �� o � .°° � � . � ,� c � o� ��a��i� N -� ,p, ie � a � d � N � CO � � O (A .0 � � � � �' +•�+�• � ��, � � � � � U I � ro � � � � � N �` i � N . � � � � � � � � o �,� U fA :� O .- +., � K3$ C O �� tT� � �.� � �,c�-�—� �rn°� �'� �.cc� c�� o C � U •� �� g"j -°- (V � � � p � � � � � � � � � � o � � z C71 �, � Q o � � � � � Cda � � � � o �� HO � � ��c� � � W o � � � U � W � 5 � 0 � � � - _ . Q ��' W , O a � h � ' 6�. � � � Q � � � W � � � � � �a � o ��v1 W � � C� N � �� H r� � � �, O �w �'w .'(� � � � Q o � � � � � � � � �� (fl "_° �°' C3 U Qlo o� U � � � � C � �� o O C7 � t� C � �,� tn � � � � � � 0.�� (6 � � ro O (A E aa� � C� �, n zs a� � � � $ � � � � � � s O v II° �� C � � � (� � C p}C'` �(n p � � � � � � v-n ' � C� � � Oy7�•�� s�-• � v A � � � � S � � � � � �y � � II. � � � � o r � C � � � � � i] "� � � V � t� � ' C � m � ,�Y, .� N C N � � (tT � � (� � � � � � � d G � U S1 � � (U '� � � � � � � ° �a�=�•v ��,�� I-�-coi�ov°,c�ia f� i � � N E`° � � Q3 � � C6 � ❑. � � � N (4 C •� C (d � � �� ,� V U � � �� •� c � ta � � v � ` � � � U � � � �� °� 'c� � � o � � � � � (0 i � � �3 � O� � �? � Y � L � f6 � �. t�n � +" � C > � c4 � a� s � � � O � °t7 N � ;� � � � � o � ui a' CO � � (� w' a� � �� o .r, � � � � Q '�n �� as a � � � �� C � y o � p . � cLf -� N = � � � � V Q�1 � � � � � � Q A (b � V1 O `°" !; � � � •� � f� � �II � � �] rU° � O .t? � '> L t0 43 (11 � A � � �y � o � �� m � � � � � � � � � � O � O �� °p �C �° �� (0 O O � C � � fJy � O �.. °O �.; +�-� � � � .� : C � �� O � o ro � o � O � (� '� a tn � G � +' � t� (4 C� o C � �' t� `- N � >.:� �u� fti (B ` � �. N � N � � O (0 � � � � � � G � U � � Q (�° w�+ U � � � C � � � � '� � � a�co`��'� n � •— � � c°�d ��° � � � e-� w � � •� � o o � �' � � •� U (4 � .� (� O �i Qa � � N CP9 � .� .� � � (4 L�.� � ,�, U > .0 O� o �� T,N � fl' N C� o•U p� � � � � � o V � .� � �U) — T Q3 U ,� O � .�w °� Q""... � L � � S C � � G � o � w � � C � (d �% u9 (� Q � � � • � ,� C '� O � � C �- � � U U � L � O (Q �. � O fA i � >, � ' V7 ��cc��s�� . a� a� � o .w a� � � � �� i �....� � U � � � > -� Q� �B lll O � C��tn�L '6Nta �.-'�a a�l�� i��Q ��,�� -�� c.��c� o � o� ��•°� �� U �° Q. Q) � � � � � � � � o � � f$ � B � C � � � � �� C� � � � � � �� -v�� u� °� o �u'�E��o��"'�° ��s� � Q� �n c �� tl�c��c�� o• � e�� cn�o�a��c�o�� u1 u� �co c�� 'c� �. o � � 0 °�G�� LL ii � � O � Q% � '` � � . .�� +-°� N� N ��'�a = � O C � �' � �-� �� •��` �, � .-� � fD G � U � U L�' O � � � fD �J � � � �� QQ t� e-.. J � 7 � N � o �1 �+ � � L� C 'C ��d�Z•�� Q � � � �' � � Z'3 `� � � :� �� A� �3�(pQ � ��C� fR�i� � � � � � L � � � � `� � (� �. � .r � G' Q � o � � � O C � � � � � � � — � O � � � � � � � Q. tn � � � � � � � � �t��UO�� caca`� � � C�� (0 0.`❑ � w OS � C .� > � C � �� Q �� +i�%, � � N � tS (ll (� O C > � oa�� 0 >� � aa .r 0. � O � ��-� U tfl N � R��c � � � � 6� .ro � a� � '°'' .°- �' � � � � � � a��i�� vu��'3 � �� U � v �d� � � �� i�� a� U1 U � � � t� a � � � � �-� ��i U.�p � O �� >. � � � � o (0 C � O � � � - � � � O � � � Y � � N .��oCL � � (ll O � � J � � � o C�� C � � J � f8 � � q � � w U � UJ O � t� 4� � � Q � s.�.. f�4�w V U 7 (tl � (�4 � � m U °' � 4� C U O -w ;° O C6 C (� � � L N � ��-- I6� t3 = o � � r N � � U Q L C � � � � � ro � � �• � � � � u�i o � s��U�ns� � ` (4 .� � i O � � S � � � � � p � o`�� C 69 U C C � � � "�i � �.D�A"^w��•�� U) fII °D N O � � � C j(� L,� O i.Q � C � � � '�!o e—�> Q� o�u�c�� ° d. � C � O � � C O � � .d.m ` -� O N � I�6 � Q � � �= fB � � � �� Q � � Q7 � � � � O � � � p)'� � .� � � � lfl �� .0 � � � C U � � � +tA � � o�.`a�� s-xL��°�°°' Uca�p�6� O o N v� � U B � � > � � v� -g � r � ,� ,t� � � �� '� Q � o � � �' �.N� � E ca� '� � � � � X Q�i � � � � � � O � � � � U O N �'�•L�-;� i�� sa.rauaaac�� ro��.u_�-ac—._ �a�a� U oc�c ��y��v�� ` � o �a� U �� "u��i�'a�oo�� uac�cac��,� 0 � � � � Y � � � � C 7 ro i � � .� a C (� � � C O a� � � r � � � Q � � � � � � V°� � Z � W o � � U � C> O E� �� W J � � O � H W � O � W W Q F� � Q Q � � ��Vw a'�,�0 a�� W � � � � , , � � �� O � � W � �� Aw � � W Z � � � a c� � c �. � c�a �� ooa� �� i=cocQ 7 � � � � � .9 = � 3+ � fiS •� iT f � (% � O U) G � �3 � � C O 0- � � � � 'e� � ;� C � N O � � w• � � L O � C � � � � 'r � � .� � � a� � � U •� (il � � �� `~ U -p � C � O I�0 � QJ � �.�7> � � � O � o � .m:, �% � `Cz �� •c � -� a- o. z� a� � � �� N o � w. Q (4 V 1°oca�� ,IC a-°i�°� � ��9� ��a�na� ��vu� '•�`�. Q� O C � � p E O U�} � O� � � � ` � � C � �l�-°v a � � � O � �'� w � �� 0 0- � a�`" � L ❑ � � � � � o � E�� o � _„_ a� � � � � 9 � � U � � � � fC p � � �V U \V o � q 4= C3 p � � � .� � � � $ � � i (A � o.Sv�� u�i �' c �� a�s�� c >�. o� c� '` � �°a�ao � ^ � cn s� U �.� f� � �'O � � � a A o � U CL O U � � i2 +• �. � U O � O � .,°�A°' � � � L�- � V � � � -C7 N � +r '� � � (�0 r O (S1 � O W O� X G U �'�' � 41 N � � � Q � � � � � � � � L � V � � � 'l7 � � � � � � � � � � � j �S.0 ��[ U � � s � � � t� �. � °' a, U�i ¢ p� y, t�4 A � i O � � � � � U ��x �� ° ��s �� a.� ��U x �n � ��v�a � � �% C > � '� •�' � O O �a�v�c u.� za .� aaa�`JO� -��a?�e �� --� Q.�� N � c� � O � � � � ^ � � C � � O v,�rr�om � � � � U � U (� � U � �g �% O o C Y O O C'� p � fC � N � � cQ ro°� L � � C .0 � � � o C � �x � `` o ��aQ.� � o � •e- � d L Q � � � O O �y �S �t� �� O Sa � � � > � ` � (0 C� V1 a-�. � � � � Ui (i✓ � �°-� c� ° 'ca � s� 0 �� i�� a,�.�� a�� °u'`a�� •c �'� c.� �•- � � � � � � � � � C °"° � � � � � � w � � � � � � � � � � � U C � (� ,� X �S � � .� � � � �� ..) � � A � v � � � L C a p O "� ~ o � � C �, p- w' ��'aQ � � 'D :°�' � � .G 'a O � a� � O C L1 G� Q. � � � � � >'j A L].� � � q� � "� css Z � � � � � � � � � C t�d "� d � � � O � d d � O '� 'C o C � � U � � +� t� � C w �QC -v>c�c oa�-�a�oca� c a� �a�i�°ac� .c � a� °. ca •� cn � I-° �� c� O i N �, i N `+-' ,p O > U ��>, p`c � � � � � ��'��c�� atc � ��,°� � c o cn ro � ,� -o � :� (� <.. f� L G -� � tLtl C 7� Q� C � cU o u O�� L V �. � -p b.. t� U tA p� C�� 3 � �' � � `� p �� aa •�- � - � "_° - ��c��U � � � � � � � '�L N � � � � ��°' .� � y� S V� o�d � f�D �� R� fE— � � `°°�� O > � Ql� �' C � � � � � � � O � 7�. � �-. � � Y � b � 3 � � � � a � d O � e � O � � a% �.�3r C �� as > � � a. � .� ,a� a� v a� �� d °� c -C � io�'�� _ Q C � Q � o � �> � a� p � �` � r�.+ � Y � C�°S -� � °� o � � � � A � � O {° � � o -a � �1 0� �' t� � U� uJ � �, � � � � � - � q ) Q) U � � � � � U� �� °� ��aca �C_��C�� '�- � .`—' a� .— v� � � �ro� � �� O � � (� � � � � � � � � O 'O v- � o � fd '°•" � f0 +'" � � � � �A � � � C O � � t U � x � � � f�19 � � O � � �� =�w �i �'° � O �O�"�'b' O N c- �n � "" ,�.�., .t] C � ` C d-p 5+�� .�+ �• � tB � � � Q} {i] w p � .� � Q) .� � L'2. � � � U Qy � �' � � � � � � � O Q � ^�' � � U � Q° —. (n � ul � (0 � � o ` o � °a ' Q r°ri � � � � .� �` � (E U ro (n � L. � Q�j � � u�i C � � � � � O � � � � � � Q Q? �°` � C � � � � '� � � G � a y� � d � o ro � .� a� � .� � �� `�� w� � u� � � C ' ` �. � � d O O G7 � �F-°�.��U��-o � a. i". ii._. w .� o � � a� �� .W �a �-� • -�~ca�c�io �}' a`"i� a�°i � ��o�� > � U C L ,�, � � .� O d QS � � (n G � � � Q (ii i � � � O " � (g N � C �� c� �� ffl U ffl � p N i7 O� G � o � U � C O C �° � � � � � OC�Q.x�[n � `Q (ti ' V "- U LQ V � � � Q.� � a � , o � w � C N > ul � O (V p i� -� � C p :wr Y -c� =a � o cn �� L � � a� ;� �y .c� � cN m� ��, � -8 .fl �- � Zi ca °a � d•� �� ` � � G �_� � O � � � :w �'(4��+ � O� � � � � � � � � Q,,, � d �' � � O O � � � °a Q% � � d � � f/� � � O � �° O � � � ��c�� .. i_ � I �� cr �� `� O , v� � Z ""� � o U � � o ^� z �a o � a � � U Ar � � o > C/] � � U C7 � � , U] � � � � � �; : �) O-'; � � a d '�°" � G�m O � � W Q E� � � � � � � � � �a � � � � � � � O (�j" � N �a � � �, v" �, o �. � w �� : �'H a� � Q o � � i,a O � � �� O � � � d � E'- � � 4-� � � � �� d� U� Q Q � � � � � � � � � %° `� v � � � � r � � ��Z � �.Z� c c � 0 � °� C � � � :�" � W i G� o � � Y O � ..J C �9 � � � � U � (if ac -o 'cn � m �� C� Q � t� > � Q U � � U �, � ' � � � � N � � � O (� � � �� a� � �� a, � a�a �� . Q� O a--� (/7 � c � � � � ��- � O�� O N � O-o.� O � � O � a�+-'- C (6 � t� � I) � � �� [D � O � � � � � � � � �ao� E a�w „- o°�v�ao ��a�A � � � �.-� Z � a� � oo .� O � � � � 'N I o � C � � � � � O N '"'' O ,�, °d � � U � � � � � C V � (/) � w � •� � � p � L C� � U � t� � C � Q g�� •� � � �j � a�W�p � o �� a� � aa tL = � '� � o � � � 2c�� O � �, 1� O � Q O � Q E � N � Q � C � O i (n N w" �� a � C!S � ❑ � � � � O � � � (� O � � � C A � C � � �' o � � � � a� � � h � 9, (v b ;w Y3 � q3 � f� C •- � � � t0 N C � O •C� �= � � � � � � .� p +� �U (� �q sr QI � ��. � t� � � � � C � � Q A .d � Ci � cn f8 � � o � � N � � � � � � *°' ��a � � � � C � Q1 � � � O � ° tA 3 Nj C � � O 1"' � � � � � � � � �, O "r R7 � � C � � � �} � � N � � � � � a � � � 'C ' n • � f4 Q . Q1 � � U � � � � �r�� a � � � � Q c o o��OC�� ;`�L�'�"� �,�.c �� c� c��oo�, �� .� z O � .� .°� � � .--. r� o-. � 0 W � � � �u � r � � i • � N � � �g O C � C � � � � � � � � � � � C � > O .d N O � � L � � (n �� c�� o._ � � U �� ` �.. � � � � � v � � � U Q O � � Q w- ,h, +�. m �aCi-ao G � � � � C 6J�- �� O .� � Uf O U � L (C9 („) - Li° � � �. � � � � � u9 0? � j ,� 0�� C 7 � yj� �� i a3 � � N '� N 9) �- � .� � � � � � �' C C� C � �'ro � � � � � � o o��ya� >�� oa�� cn cr' ua o �, ,, i': � � � � � � � UL3 v � � � Q .� � � � �� `e� J a� � A o � c I� U � � � I}� 9 C � 7 N .� � C .p m � 0 � H o a� o c C � tl A o °'' � �� +. w � � � � � � � N � O Q - N �. c� �� .. v� c � �,, � (� U "� � � O � � U ` i � � � � � � .� � N � � N � Q �'C �� Ri�'� U� � N � O � �, � � �:n � N O N � � � � � Q � �' � � � C �i � � � � B � LZ. i � � � .�+ � � � ,� o �, 9 O � � � � � � > � lIJ �+ � � ° �°�-�.� �-ao � � a�E�°�,°?` c� v o � � � .�0��-� � � �'� � � U � a � � 0 Z a� -�, � � � � •� _ U � = N � . � � � �; � � � ;. Q C Q-° N p � '�=� �� , � O � � U f-- O � � C � W o� _ C �° O � � W o (/) > W U � � C� C � L1.1 � � � cLS � � � � a � � � � � � O Q � � a � I � � � o � z ' Z t� � � � z''� r.� � o U � � o � �E°°� � � U a�� a, �W O � � � � o � � � � � � � � � Q � � Q E-' Z � 0 W Q � � � �� r� �� o � ONa � � W � �� O � "� W � a ' O W Q a� a� �A o� � a� � � � c °� .Q � � ° � a� � � � '°°° � o � � ! � '� c � aa�c c��v�o �oj� �� d � � �U�� 0 c�� ao�.r � U t�� X �0-3� � � 1J� � � � � N (1 �+ C C 3,C� �} .� � � � Q � � � �� tl � j � � o� � v � O ,, c� � '; � � U c� � c c� � 0 � o` � � � �c .� � ¢ � � � A � � � � � a� � � U � v� .-. � �-. � d W Z Z � LL 0 � � � a-° W � iY L1a 0 � � CJ � � � � � c � o c � v,co`� 0 -�.�°� �U�� U �- � � �•� Q o � � U � C��C; � � Q � � � v fD ��U � a � � � oa�U> � � B � � � � � O o 3 �� o � � � � � U i C � � .w p) � O � C �y g�; 4J � � � w ` tn �r O � � � � � � � � .� ,ti -� u� I� a U � ,� U � � � ca 0 � '� N � O U a� � � � � � �O �Z �z, �O � �n � � � 6� o � � U � �7 O �Z �� w ��O W C? � � � � � O W � � � � � O � � � : _.. � i � � a � F- w � OO W � W Q � .� � � � � � � � � � O � � � L� � o � O N � _. , ", ,: ..0 VL.'Td� �6b�iYLiCli rc. �m�Ln Fil�-48�-0699 o� �� E:� � •� '�e I.�IU��ad,��i� `� 4 � w � °d i::a�;��^ , `� • �b ��a ° PaatHee4M � e�pp�icani I�ioemation N�ane of Applic�nt Address P. � Cl�1Ydl� V �Y�r d L'a$r��15'$�dV A EA��CA1e $ 37a r.d ( 1 :/ S9L"e Y L� A�� t'i��,dl�` A 6 dol°I 240I I3ighway 10, Mounds View MIe155 i 1? Pdease �'ype or Pririe Infarr�atio� - Compteie Beib Side� af ihis Fo� AP NfOU1�IDS V�nT LIlKITID PARTNERSHIP 12770 COI� ROAD StJITE 11i0 D�AS 'I`X 75251 InBe�sY i�a Prope� (c6eck apprapriate box) n Owr�er ofI'roperey � Lcsscc, Operaeor, Manager � �ther �expl�) 612-7I 7-4020 6I2-7�4-34fi2 - ,�A� Teleghone 972-991--4484 Fax 972--991�4494 � Centtact for Deed Owne� � A ene co Purchase App�i��nts a»t provi�ie evislence o� �te�st ias �Sropee�y at ti�� 4areae ot a�rplicatio�, a�d if yora aae t�o� tbe owner of P6e ptopert,r, �,ou �usY provid� a iegtee� �f per�issaA�a fcoro tha ow�ner gavin� coaseat �o tt�e filin$ of this �ppiicaiio�, �� pruperty ovvaer rnuat sign i�als applicatia� tor it to be ac�epted. �1Fe1't3' �escrip�ian/Pro��$1 ?-- � -- Legal Descript�oa Property Ideatification # (PIN #) # of Acres C►urer�t Zonin� 2430 HIC�iWA� 1Q/7ANG LAKE ROAD & COUNTY ROAI� Fi-2 SEE ATI'AQ� 083023230003 Type af Applicauon � Comprehe�asive Plan Am�ndrnent � Rezoning � Major Subdivision � Minor Subdivision o Planned Uni� Uevcioptrfent (PUD) � PUD AmeaYdgn�rtt Q Conditionaf Use Pem�it � Vanarace Q Code Appeai � I�evelop Review/Sit� P3an � Wetian�d Alcera�ion P�ntit � W�ttand �taY%r P�rrnit � FEoodp3ain i'�nnii Q Ocher SZSO $2S4/acre; � �250 max $1500 3250 + 5250 deposiz* S200 Refer to rezot�ing fees $350 R°1, R-2 �75: ali others SZ50 R°I, R�? $7�; alI others �250 �100 �i2Sl�cre; anar� �12� max $i50 R- [, R-2 S t S0; all others $Zp0 R-1. R-� �25: atl o[hets � 1 QO �200 �:SSiLs shall b� patd 2o eovej• �11 e:osCS 0%publir i1oCiCes. materials and sc�ti`or cons-ult�rtt time spetiE in tize review, researeh or preparaeion of enat�rinls assoeiated vri[h this applic�eion. The uppFicaae shaIl be r�ponsibie fo �Il reasonabl� �acurr�d costs in ��ccess ot the irtivai d�posit aa�ount. qnv poreton of the deposit not spent or �nciunbeeed shaiE be re#unded ro�e applicanc withixi chirtv (30) days ai��r consideration of the appjicatian is r,ompl�ted. Feb 11 9$ �2:43p ��y of �oursd� Vi�wo, A�1� r�._, 1Je,..,e11 R. SmitY� Pres�c Use o$ Prnp�j+ � TJr�cvetopedNaccaiy� ° ��wo� :; �ly �weil�g � $�,g1� r�maly D�fi�g � �usiatssl�ataimrs��al EstabJishme7st Q 4t�cr � ?�Iulii-far,iify Uwelli�� i�iaini �wcrre� £stablisi�art �r��Y Ci��sifieuaoR � L��scriptio� ofPropasal amsaa�� 10��'19 62� r�4°Q6�8 BI' ?t�1'y (QU�) SICNAI'L,RE ON i r�S A.ppr K�O�GE, � �°Q�,'�TIONPROV�j�D j�� 1 �'R�3Y DECLARE L'E•,�N{� �T. i'O 1'� �E�T' �F A� Si�atttre af A ]' � � �' FP ��-za� i!�&'t�� t Applacanc {ryP��Pria�tccd) �. � ri Jt1{ .�,N"I"dJ, e' Si a � n� of Prope-�y �wner � , , Name.nfpr � °' � , r ` /% � . � o`"r'� ��/Pr��ed) TAUZSE O' £IEEIL T � ` C � Address af pwner �' c *r �, T :, _ � P�eAe Ne�,mbct of Own�r � �_ ^_ og�.a��B�a�Q�a��s��amK��4�,R��.*��$��,��.��a��aa��.a��a�.��mv�RQ�� m��.w�m��a�� ate af Suba�i� ��dR OFFI�� iJS� 01Viy ?aee pf,qecc�cunee �fa�ir►g Cosc No, 60,day Lirt,�t ��ed to: l20-daY Iim,it � �_ . �ces Paid: 'plicaeion: �ccosant � C�� . �I��ieetiort: R�Cipt � :�osirs; �__ � � �� :4l: �Ai�A4('lft(iL'p$iC.o:�1�E`l�A4S1L1�V.�o cno roo: coo� vr.,�J,,... �..,,..4 z F�•2�: �� j' ;; ��l��_.� _��►'��1�.�:i� �Z��►� ihe soufih�r�st I/4 oithe narthvv�est �/4 oi5cctio� �, Township 3�, Rangc 23, iyira� soutt��est�rly of S�at� `��u.rik �°igh�xray �To. 10-62, �c�ordir�g to ihe LTnited 3tat�s f�ovet��nt S�v�y ther�of 6dbm+ �8L6A(bL{r ddd JN� 6sM�l■�9 iYq,�18�1�3Vd86. � All tha� part of th� north�est 1/4 �f 9'he n�rthw�t 1/4 af Sectimr� �, T°a�ship 30, �n�e 23, ly�z►� sauthw�sterly of State Trunk �3°ighway No. I0, accordin� �o the LTnited Siat�s C�overrr�rnent S�arv�y thereof �d situate ici sey County, �.so�a. Gan °°�g i,1�3,99i �quare f�i �� 26.979 acr�s. i :� . . 1� � �. ��y al�m, �e�� .!T'i`O�IVE'Y5 1T LAit' .70� ��i"OiY .LDAyI°�P�b IAi ALA9KA ,�N%� Q+IHNtd�OTA F�bruary i9, 199� Chuck Whiting City Administrator Ciiy of Mour�ds `�/iew 240i �iighway 10 Moundsview, Minr�esota SSi 12 �e, O`N��1 �e�g��}' Dear Mr. Whiti�g: DYO� }I�NAI'EPISY .si'�NVk" BOUT3-I A%%PYIV�,IPOLIS. Af%NPIESbT°A 554fl8 �-I►Is1,IL:bea4o00i �It.umn.edu �o�c� �tas�,: ��1-a�o� ` pa��R csx�► �o_gas� . DIOBII.� (6i�1 '793-218� ��..°� csia> s��-aaa� This letter �ritl cvn�� th�t fihe properiy ov✓ned by L,oufse O'Neil on �Iighway 10 across from City �Iall is �ow �nder a grau�d fcase to Anthony Properties dlb/� AP Mounds �Iiew Limi�ed �'�u'lncrsl�i p. �.n€hvr�y Proger�i�s �Iana�ernent, Inc. is the general partner of the part�ership. R. Jay Anthony, as Presid�nt, is authariz�d or� b�half of Louise H. O'Neil to proceed oc� beha(f t�f Louise ki. O'Neil r�ith ih� subdivision of this property. We appreciatc your efforts and those of the city staff, Planning Commission and City CounciI �o makc this a good development for your City. We Iaok forward to working v✓ith you in the future. Lct �s kmaw vv�at we can do to help. if nothi�g, please reIy an Mr. Anthony for our it�put. l "•:.1 � I gt°a�t �h� ��thoriiy stated �n this I�Y$�T t0 AP M�l�Y1�S VB6W I�ltftl�e� P�1�FS$llp, A�thony ,' P�oper�y I��a��rnen�, Ira�. atad gts �resid�nt and �ener�i pa��r, �. Iay �thor�.y. , '� � / . � ,�`i � � .% 7 /� r,G• �° vvU - C" ,�f M- �� ,,%��' « � �y�,� �ateC�: %, v - - �'O4dtS� �. o`Ne%� , cce R Jay Antho��, Anthor�y �rop�rties �ia Facs�il� (9i2) 991m4494 w I isps�; ��wa, �$ � m �� A � � �:� I � �!} � L � a R � n � � � ;� t: � �: iz � � � R � � r-;: �_ ,�. . i�, ., ,� �,_ �' �F M��9� �W �� F $�� STA qF' SO`�A �'�: �� ... • ",� 1 �:�., �,, :. •: i; 1` • :�� ;i. �°�� :; '" • -'.; �, , i� `� 1 " �i�� '� : :� ' ,� ` `�:1�l�1;�.:� �,.` � ,�x.. . , , ��.: . � �-� •., ; !� '=;1#�S i .1 �. : �� 1 �` � �'� , •: -�, ;1 ,1 '_,� � r. , - � - • '�� ::1:�� .; �-� .,.. � , � . � ��. ... �:� ;��., . � _� . � . ` � .. �=. � � : r " . � '!' .! ;?: � : . � • � a, ; � ., . ,, _. . � , �: • �: .. . � , .. . � ..� „ , _ . _. , �.. �. , ► �_� �• �� : � •:� � ,.��,.�_, ,. .. .: .►. :. • . - . �..*_�, .. ., •.s�-..�.��,;,:� r. ! � r.�' � r- •� "�'. .- •.��:R�� •i i-: �` R _. ^ .. �':. . ��_ �,� �i �:. _r, �' �'�_ � �.- . ' • u -;� :, . �� -�.- R IE'YY " . . , f f �� -�I,�f' ;: . -.- ., ! ��r- �� ►'.. % • r ,_ P�rt lpa�� soaa�b��st��s �f ��t��ie�� f �T� N�a 10 of so�thw�t I/4 of r�o w�st I/4 (sa�b1 t� ro�ds� f�a�bw�y �d ��r�ts� in Se�io� 0�, °To�tship 30, �� 230 � ' " • . .s ,i !, . �- .• . -..., ..: �.- . . ,- � � � . ,,. ,. , � ..�..� • •�e. �,-. _ •� .. r�,� �� .� , � • R. f_ .,' ��.-: i . .."� � R � - , ._. . ,�: # . • ' . ..:. . -�. 1 - . -. • r �i - r . �: ta •'. i � . 1 . �' .::� � t�' . .. � +, : � � - • • �. -. ,,,, _• .. • . . . �� .. . .:. ., .! �Z �e.. � � r.� �_��' �� ! ..1�. � � . , �_� • • � - - • : r ,. :.. -: � ' .: . . � � ._. i R . ' . ,.. ..- , . - � . .►� . -�. .- :...a �. .- - •s - . .. . + t�• , . . , . "r��l ♦ �+��. f ._�f'" � f: �... � .�,: :: � ,� e - • .� ,. � �, i " � ....� � � • �� _'. � � � .. .. . .. . .-. ....- •l-1:�:1f� � � k : t -�. �� .:1.�. •' ...�' '1 ' � ,-., . 1 1.,. � •;-�� ._, � 'M' ' e f .:.. ♦ . . w " ' !. � _. � '1 / �r ' , . � � . ).. • �'.... � ,. ., , • . • , . i • � } _.��° .'�. .._ s � • � "' . �.. .R ! �. " � . � 1 1� ! <' ._, ," � ' � . " *, ' �. . � _" .. . . _: _ .... i , . ' .�.. . � . ! �� ". • . ..�• � } :��;: - ,'.: � 4 � ._... _ � �1 _. ► ,. � . .. * ,,.:� �_ . � A ' � I�1` :..� .� _ � _i.� `_ �`. ��.�a _ ___ , , � .. • . : . � �S, Distz-�ct 1�s r��erred Yo as City (�1'al�a��) Center9 �d the desc-r�ption aia the . Compr��nsive �'lan for this dis�ict s�tes �tat �his area o��rs �,e c�rr�nta.raii°y a vaivabie oppo 'ty of cr�a�irag a strorag, vi�i, ideni�yir�g corra�u�iry focal poini. It also states that carnmerci�! ar�d ; m�diva� density resid��i�l d�v�iaprr�ent should be Iocated in pro�amity to H"i�hway 10, �ith a - de�re� iri i��nsity ofuse oc�urring aut�vard from �e hi�hway toward the lower density residen�a�l n�i�aborhaods to ihe south and west; and, _. � Cit� CounciI Resoiurion No. S I 44 �y 12, i 997 Page 2 �'�' ` . . . .. - �� y _ _. _ . ..� . � .. . ��• "• "e R e - � � - � � ` • • � �- . � ' � - ._, _ � '' : � - � _ � : " � k 's _. . . : " • ,- � - ._ . . - � . � -'" i. .,._. . �•f •tw.. . � �. � �a• . -+ • � � a 7�� .M� ♦ �. : � . ° - ,. -. .: 1 ,. s i :.�"• - * _:._ �_ .. � � - - �� , . � �� . .' R �. �. �- • • � "'" . �. ...� . ..�.� _.... . � �� - �r � � ._i .. � : . -� �� - , .x� .. - � � ��r : . . • .. , � ��. ,�- . -r� _ � � . � _. _ . . , ►_ ' __.� �� • �- .� <:_'a• ..��.� . •'�s�_. _.. -� � ,� �� .■�� .�i � ; •. �i 1�!�' , � � � -. � _� y _,_ , . �_ �. � . . _ :, f • �-. iJ� � ... . , . - , � . '" .. ...,. . .. �. � ) r. . _ . . . J �. � -� # (1 �� ' . . . s _. . � ... . • , � � . � - . � .-.. • . �. �. . ,. �� . : , �,. :� ,., ... __ .� ,� ,. .:. .�� _� �"" !. .. � 1� � � rlf " �_ �"�+ . ` ., � � ' . ., . , • • a. . , � . , .., * -.:..f r, .. � — � ' . 1 x � � t � • -:�. . " ,....+ �, - . . .1.': •_ �_. ... .,.. . . � ,. .... !�f, . .e.�� !.' '. ' . . � � . . � C ° ► F�! � -.-.� - �:. � '- - ' �: �.. : �� . � :., ,�� > ..,� � � . � � r:�. � ..,�r .: .u.r• ..� ,:..u:a -+ '�� .■•t. :.. �: .ti Th� chaa�e from medium density residen�aal to rnixed use FUI�, alIowYn� both commer�a! a�d residential us �' es, �vazIl aIla�v for fle.�bi�ity ira the CitY (��) �enter ar�. Tb� accoinganying d�scriptian �f the types af Iand �ases to be �11ow�d re b� inr�uded in �he ' aad directs dcveio meat to�rard d• �es tbat c�aimerciai rather than loca! conv�nience �omagercial. pihis ffiixture wiIl c�eaYe a ifv��y�, �� at the h�rt of th� ca ' and brings a ne�, bene�ci�t ei�rnment to th� land use mix in Mounds �ew. The proposed aaieadment pl�c�s this commercial �ctivity c�ter on I�S�way 10, w}�ach is th� major travel corridor through Mounds �ew, �nd across ii�e stre�t frorn �ity Hail arad the Mounds ire� �ommunity Center, wtuch �rill reinforesgthe City �lla�e) Ce�ter id�a. The Iand tase descriptiora reqtzires adequaxe bu�"ering berwe� this Pro�rty and the residenti�d nei�borhaod t� the souil� be provided by Iirnitir�g ghe i�te�sit�, oi t�s�s in th� are,� 15� fe� from Cotanry Road �i2y and bY req�airin� a. 50 foot bu�`cr oi laaads�pira� or tree cover if ihis area is is�d for e�mrr�ercial tas�s. � � • � � � •....1 . i fl _. . _ . .., ��.. 1 M i. �.:�. � . � J' i � ^ : ".. !. � .�...1 l . . .. .. — . :. _' y 1 -�i .. . 1, ..: . "_ iia� policy under this �oal ciirec�s �rtention tc� prot�cting iritegrated � districts {reside�tia! caei�hborhoods, comrm�rcaal c�nters, ind�st�i�l parks) from pe�etra�� by �raugh c. The r�ons to the text fnr District I indic�ge area within ISO f�et af C�unty �toad H2, that� s� o Co� ty R.oacf I�2 b� r}e ped in thc p r o t e c t t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d s o u t h o f Cc�ta�ty Road � frorx� throu�h trafi��. T°he s bstantial � , �; ,� City C�ta�cal Resoluti�n Nt�. 5104 �Viay 12, I997 �age j ��d on this property shall b� preserved. The cbange fr�m rr��urr� densi� r�sid�ti�t to rr�at use PUD alio�+ing boti� comrri�regal and resid��t�al uses �rea�es �flr� possibiliti�s for rei.taforcing the ide� of cr°�tin� a vsbr�nt Ci�l (`i�e) Certte�. , . .�_� . . . ,. _ . , . . . _ . . � . �. �r�-� �-, : �_� ._. _ , _ - � . � � -..... � , _. � � � ��... .� �; ��•: � .,,-� � ��,� . �, . ; � . . . � � . _ � . . . -_. , . � . �. . . �. . .: . . _ , , . , . . . _ _ . . . • - �„ 7 �. ,�c, .-. ,� . � ,� � �- i '. :.- . :rf 's'• � - � '. -'. ��-..._ � . � �� -� i:.� . ' `I f. :.1 � ■ ,: '1 • ��. R • �� - a :.. . . .. _� � . �� i . � . /� -�. 7 ♦� �f➢ H i 1 . `�- �. "" . . _ � s i� �fl �� • ii "� . / f� .:" �: 1 -�: .. ■ 1 � R � 1 ` i . 1" -.' _ � 1_ � � ► n : �1.., ..'� I .. , ..��1 11 1� R�� . �s .. . � � � � � .�.. _�. � • � +ti . � . � " �1 � } � �.:i�l . ' .� _ . ..� ��.� �. �.! r �. 1 ... .:, � . _ . " • i . i! �t. �ill. l,. �!i. � ... _ , ... ... " � , r.. . ".. � 1 �1.�. � � .. . . . - �'♦ � _ } ..� � �� . f.. _ .. � �� . . 3 l��... �.�. y - - -� i4" �. , ��r':"�' _i� �� --- ��. II -- � . . � ... . .�. _ .. _ , _. , . �� tl _� _ ! �, ,.. . ! � , ;f 1 •�.. _ � . � `: i � _. �. � .� _ , .. .. _ � .: . _ ... � • _ . �� • � .. •�:._ ' ,:, �.�# r.:`: � ••�� fl • ��1 ��" , '�`r��,t '_� r" . "�__i� ] +r .'� �' ♦ . - ;,� �'-..�r . 1 �+, � ■ l .� f .1 f��' .. ' � . 1. , r�w f. _ ..._ _ , . � � # � +#.' �`.Kr �� _( � .. � �. '1� . � . 1 • f . _ .-�1 �-'; i -_!. _1 � �� -.- . � �. �... ._..�� . . , �� • - f �. � � � • / . . : � .. �' f .�. i . -� � f /...., ► � e: l. ... ! • 1 • -� . " � � •. � - -. :. , �. .._..... . � •�•.. .1'. �►�• ��Ilw _* - . , �...'�w .. -_�, . . .:. � ' �:. _ _... . , � . .. � !/. ' �. .... . • , ; � � . .. �.. � . .:. � , '� �. �. i . � .: f .. - _... • • .1. • � �.-... " �: .� • � �f� `._ �� 1 1:.': • ..-, • .. '� ' s � � � ..., � " � .: - �� - < � . � � . . _ � � ... r . ... . � .. , �. � . , .. • -._ � � _ + � � ^ � ' � J �� 1 -. .. . � = ,. 1 •. _. _ ,- � • ' - . "" + ♦ �.. •. 1 ' • �, ... � � .... . � . � - �� _ � .. • � • ';: !. . � � �.:. • t s ' f ! ��..:. - � ... . -. .� ! �.,. • i ..,. , • � t_.:! .._ _ � <. . 1�:y �� -- �f-:!� . • *'f�f � s ��.,. �- -.�1 - � -.... •"��•� 'i. • �� . ��:, f �. � ' � '�. � " � � � .•� • ^ '::, i � . ' �... _ ,...�: � � R ::.. � , _. , .. _. .... • . ,, � 1 i. !. . _ . - . • �.. � • - --: . . . . .: R ... .. ... . - �.�� . . - ... .. .: .. .. a� � -.. _: , ..�. � . ,Y ._.. < . � _. • ��:i'-. .: .. -� _ . .. � .. . : . .� ! � �, i ! ' !a _.... • _ .. �. i • � + • " �.. ��I,1 . ! � '1'. • 'R �..J� �'��-_ .. �..,. . �� '• :.. � � �! . 1'" 1 � : °'2. } �.*. �.....�, _ . ; , . . r s . . � R � - - -- " � - -� -,� . _ . . • . :+ r� . . „ r � � � .� „. _ � : �,, ;: . � � .. � ,. � �'. ; �: ` . _ � � _. R , ` .� . ' 'i � ! :. � � - � '_ ! � � �;; . R " ' �i. ! � . _ .. , '�.:_. . •, �- � . _- ... � :_ � ,,,. � , . � _;� '. �. � '. . .. . . ,. , :�.� `e . � ,.. ..: .� �.--:.;• :" �1 � � . .. _, � ,, :. .. � , _ .. . .. -- .. . . � _ t � -. � � _ . R • � _. - s- � 1�� . ,. � �� .��, :_ * R : _ , _. _ .. „ ..• _ � � .�� . . �. _. �,:.. _ , . ,_ .. � �. ... . .1 _. "� ._ '; - � .. i ._ � ,1 ' - .. � ._ - _. _ .. .-- . . . . ... _. . ,_ ' • Ct :w Y �� • - ! � �-, 'f • _ . .. � _. � ,.-... • • �_. .. � - � � _.. , . i -.... . ,. . .. _.. • ' �. .�.. " .. * . �. . ... � '... " ^ .. .... ... � i �� .. �• ` a . . . ' , . �� .1�� . � _.., • ..�. �.- �.: � � ..... .. _., . , r � - ! �, ![ ',��. . �� ! . � • �. �. �." . 1 . 1 .'�, � � _ � � _, ... - � -...,. -� � .. � .. -_ �. �I . ) l � .. .� . ^ • - �. ._. • � . . _-,.: .. ::: . . ;'.. ,: ..:;it � ' .:': ..., .. . ,.. � 1 ..._ � . - ��+ �� 4 f.; ��.. . • E • , • •.� �.. _ �. ... sr,: , � �� R ,.� ,., „_ � � .. . ;, �' -.• � ..... • � � " ' - -- ►' ... - . _. . . .. . � . � f. ._ � i ., , � • � � :� ) � � � � �. _ . � . � - � � > 1_ " ��. .. �� , . # _ � ,, ; . ! • ^ ' � -�'.� „-,i - . � • � -. ... . . . _ ... '. � �-. _ . , � _. • " , � _ � . 1 � . � ! � ' " � ' � � � � .. � , < �_ . �- -. �:� . ♦�!� �iM. �„ � - . .�.- �� .. ' s � � . . i .f =i.. �.. . � - ". � " '. �. • , .. . � . .. � _ � ' •"a - � + ♦ .. . < - ,.. � � + �.�_.. , �� , :,_.. ♦ •:..i• �.. r' y ,... � '.�� _ � � � 1 • �_ •�r: ..� : � � = ♦ . - � � 1::" '. �' 4 " M � ., • • � :! ii , ., . 1.'. �.=i "�� :Y��' ' ��-1-:�.� `�:-.: " .. f; �'� .�...'".� ��.:, AT'�ST: .i - _ ts ) � � . . .. _.. _... Ar. .�.. �..' ` � %r�''�� _ . . -, ., _ ., : , . � � � c�� s. ��,� � c� c��r�-�� i�I:11iATAVC�ROL7PSt�OFrRi7�V1DEV�A,SESl471-9'71CCRES.CPA <: , �ity Councal lu�ior� �d�. 5104 ' iV%y 1� I997 � � �'a�e 5 � � �.�►.s�.ts: -� ,: .. -.. --�;• = - ... . ._. _ _ . _� _ _Re _ . _ � : _ _ � -� � � _ _ _ . . � � �.. .., . -�'• ""a � ____ � •. !: =�. '- �.- �r � -i . i.:::.� " � �: � ,i�- � . :r '; �. . . «y =� „♦ � �. �_ _ -:-.yr'.' �;, - �: ". • • s: ►�.� r:rn. � - . . ._ - . ... ► � . � • ,�1.-. i. . � � -�. - '- r - � -.� . . , r_-.. �a__.. , : �-� - ��r�, : — � ...;.- .. _ � � r.-�.� , *..� . -� .• . . _« 0 f�A�1�� ioo��lai��ign�ted�leti�nd � �te�p 51�pes � � Tre� M�s�ing - ° ApPr�s�rrrat� lo�tio�� - subJe�t io d�t�iie� r�vieb,+ �Y �rn� of pr�p�sed de�ei��vr��t. :� ; _ � � � i ; i City Coun�il R�st�lution I�1o. S I 04 Ma�r I�, I99i Pa.pe 6 :: � � ,t.�. � - � . _ :+ �. •: r � . � � - _ _ . • :� � ;� • - ,r ..: : • � . . � � , - _ . -:,- �� . . . - - _. °• . r- �-,. � �� , , , �, - • �� ; - _. ! • • }..1 �f, t . ►�� ":� • � .. . � ... - . -- • .. .. � - "�. � • . . �. - �� ".._. . � # ' ,. . � . ... •. . ► • • .'. � , . � ' . � ...... _. . .y+ f -.. � �.. . ... .. � ' �.. .. 1 1 . � � • ., ' -. �� )� '" � ! "' � .. . M.�.� f ..., �.,.. _., � '� * ► _. . � • `f G.� • i � ,;;;1 -. . � . _. . .f R. ': � " � � ' � . � 1 i. ' : t.� . . � * • • a • �: ' s' _ � •�! • - . � � �. � ' � . . �'� : • - �. , �t�� .• - .r� �, � - ..r - . • .: : � � N � . ) b :i: 1 � � . � ; � ,� � � � .,. . • i :i�l�, �� •e: - � � � - r. �� `� �� - -_� + " - ��" � r•�- -� .-.° ..��%_ -, .: ;_. , .. . . . . ; . ► _... aH !#�. _ � --�. -�. ; � 1 • 11�.. " � • . .. . � _. ,.� � .-: �I � � i'•, :!. �. � � � �� .. . . � � ..- � _1 ... � � � 1�'� � �, � f r ^- . . . , . � . . . _ .. . � ::. . "� � R . - . .�_ , ;-_:.` , :.. •" , a_ ; .� .f:• .f . , y � , * � � .,_ • ' . .. • .' .: fl . • • y •. .' � . — � e• ��_ � � • �. =.' `l .. • � 1 � 1 fi � 11.R._ _ �_�. _ 1 � : � �. � � �, �.- ! 1 " '. �. :,! � � .. � ..�' � � .. -- � y;.,, � � ,- - ' ._ .f� �1'� .�. ":��`:- .:..�-'.....'a_..: � � � �� . ` • �, i. : �. � . � � ' 4 f i.' � ' �1 i � .��- � �R� � R.I...i ....ir. •.:.. *.. .1, _� � , ` ' , - . � . � .' �l . .... . . - - �� ..�, � f_ ! . . — ' �. . 1 � �.._ J'� � � �. M� .. 1. � ♦ . . �,:# � �_ r -�� ._., . � :a� , � - � _ �I a .:' :,_. � • r . - • � � :. • , - . i � �., ., ' - •; i ;i_e� r . �' � l Y t 'x� � • � . rv • . — � , • : � ' • . , �. � .f . . • ,.. % � �� "-- *:...• . � �. �:� • 1 �... • •. � . � ' .. . .. •_/ � � � ". � ' ' :, ' .: �. .. +� 1 :i�� t. � �:..� . .: . • " i. '::. • IE 1 � � _: , ' .. ' � �f � :.� . 1 } . .. � . -� ,: � . . - -�� r , ., �'1;�..� . . �� • r..�. ":.. . . .. ... . .� • � � � . . �� r� r. � . . . • _� � : "� ' : � - , i � "'� • r - y . � . : s � • ► . ' "' � !' . � . + . . _ _� . i�. . •�-• .rt � � � :�i . - ,.. _�� • � .. ' • ! �. " �/ • .f. 1 .. � ' � ' ' , � f �1� • .... �:.i � • ► "'' !J r1... � _ . . � .� 1 yL1 �,'- , i! •' . . - . .. � ♦ - -' � . - . . .. � ' . •. �f . , . - . .. � �. � " ' . '� _:.. ... � � • �. ♦ ': •':. ♦ �� . - " i " - � � 1� ' � " � ' !/1 "� �. • 1 1 " �' i ... �� ' ��Y � � Pr�nts a c.�ail�rage to the c�on of the V'�lage C�ter, i� that it �uts dia�onally across t�i� disrtrict and the remaiz�der ofthe c,�mmu�ity, and is used as a major route to �zc�vc � tbre�u� the re�ion. It carries a hi� volumc of �c durin� �orn�autc times, �d tia� �min� of the c lights �'avors the hi�y ra.gher than local c and ped s�$�� to cross th� high�ay ag the � �ons. 'rhe V'�lia�� C�t�r o�'et� the gos�baia'ty af crea�ng a�� h�lves ofthe communiry, which wiii overc�me the division created by the �� y �It�een�t�desire of t�e cammunity that g�i�way I0 b�come a bouievard that is raoted in Nlounds Vev�,, az�d rnake� the c€�cnanuaity vis�ble ratll�r i�a�iin� or being obtivio� to tbe cotaYmunity. V�hi circ�xiation should be d�ve�op� a�eo ° to a zing road concept tt� k�p naa}or c g��w on the p�riphery of the �llage Center. Access to I-��hw�y i 0 should be limi�ed and canc�n�ated. Re�ative to gener�l us� patterns, commerci�.I.I and rr�ed�urr� d�r�sity �eside�tial �cvciapmeret shouid be locax�ti in proxirni�y to F�a�away 10, wi�h a d�crea.s� iri intertsity of use occurririg c��ra.�d fr�m the highway to�rard the lo�re� d�nsity resid�n�aai n�ighi�onc��ods to ih� south and v✓es�. D�veit�prt�ent shouId aiso in�lt�de provisions i'or dedflc��o� o�Iand to a ped�s�`ian/bicyele trail system w�uch � tie the vario�a,s �err�ents af the ��e, tog�her and pr�vide corug�etion te a comm�anity -�de systeYn of t.��ils. - � � �x�y Corinc�i Resol�tion No. 5144 �ay I24 199i �� :�; �age 7 �� - :��_• •��. �- _i = �, ., -� ,. ♦ �� .,_ . ...�*, _ ..- .��s�' � _ � . ... ; � _,.� _ .,.,. � � :�� ,, , .•' � . .: . � _ ... � �. ... �. , *.�. . • � • � • •• .i� .. ��,7�i =� � - . � . .��-..;_� � -� - ,-. �,, � � � r._. � ;, . _�_ . � . . � • _. .. - . ,_ �_ : _ � ,. .._. :s � � .iai : _ • � :. � ;' � •s-i . ��i• � :i i • . , ' •. t r. - � ' •,. ��-• • . �:.. , � r. ._. „ • .. _' ► - • : �� • � '. �.'t. : � .. � ., �. '.. � . ... -:., r �:..: �: - ` R . , -; �: # . i . �� . � . .. • ,. : � � , �_ . . � t., .- .,. 1 . �: � � i � • - "' i s � • . ��:.� 1 • e • � , � " �. �- �! ��.�. • i: �� , k �, � _� �_..� � !- *.- . - •�� . , r ,. „ . � ; . t . ' ��` . :- � - .., � � ....a. «' " � � �. �k '" � �: f " ■ . � � Y : - ' "a • a ! � . ' " • t" • t . _: .. ,. _ � � . _ � ... ' : .'_ �i � �' ti. �� • R � ,Y: • :... ..� . i_ . � � _ � - � : . . _ . .. .. . - - J • T. • .� " , � � x. �_ �' � � � . '. -�1�. ;. � i' :-- -. � .. . . . .. _ _:.: "�:1. ' .. -.:. , .�...: . .:...� .� "" :�..�i. -._...1�,:.,. ��...+.* ,�!-. ♦ "�": •', �... '� �.�:..' •��1. =� !�'... ' +�`:' �. �+l . � . � ,°.. R ,. _ � � .. .. _ �. .:. . . . 1 1_ � . �. - .. • . '"- . -� i � •.' ��' ""- '' M . _.... _ . _. , ,". . t..� ..: ., -. . . ' � .. ... , .. .� _ ^ .,..,. . „_. ! , . ... 1 ' •� �� • � 1. � � � f �.. .. �.: � � J. ,..� � �.,: _ ,. . � ,., .`w. :�. M ��. 1 l � � • . � . � 7 : � :.. �� ' � . � °' � '1 � -.'.. 1 ` •: - _ ' ' . J. : .. . .�. - �: " . �. . .. • r ,.: � � , f . ..: . , "� /. , :� 1 "' - ' 1 � i _. � � � a. • f. " � . � ' . , s � �� • . 'f. 1 � �, :.� �1" . .,. -. �. .� ^. � � � :- . i. �. . ,. : • 1 "w_ .,: f� `. (.`� 1..�� ,� . �. �. .-..�i " �f. � • �i.,.-�i "._." 1�r;f1�1 �-�:.. ..�_, �l�..�.- , � .-. _ ,._�_ � " 1'i. .. i . . .... . .. . .. .. �. i _. ' - ..: - . .. . � . �. � . � .n . � � . . . . ..,, . :. . .. ,1.. •� � .•. . .. .. . 1 ' � '�� - . � ♦ �..'-, r., �. � w'1 J1.. � � 1 �� f � � �. �.. .' f : • . .1. • � 1�.':./1. . ";:. ., f t...... _ � , ... „ i ,, � .,�,f' ��'�: •l.-�.►�-��i •.��' R ��.i. .l� ,�t.'.fl'.;..^, � .�._•,�-�:.•�_.��t.�.._. '.� ��-,: . . � . . � 7 • � -.'� �. � . � .... � �_. �R -. � � � -... � -.. . _ �.... � _,.. . , .. . . . _ _ � �:,�. � � • . �.. +.♦ • �- y T= r.�:. � , �'• ��_: � �, _ .i� �a� ' - {-. �..:. � "� . `� �,, � •i^'� •" : •� . �-��: :. .. - � � . �.t . �-. � �. . " ... � ...�. � . ! �� :-� . :.r.' • .: �� ::✓, .:: � - - : �. f , � .:" " r..�.. ' �. �: .1. . 1 .' f ,. �' .. R..�� . � �. • • -. ! . f . ` � ^ . �. � , - _1' " •��. !;: ' �• . � °�. � • � .: 1 =r . ' ' •.:� . • ,. � `#•, .s� - •-� _ r . :�w :.. ' . � � � .. .�r i. ,: ,�.: •, . . - : �-.,.. �iir " y.. .i.. '. .-� ••'• ri�. • Y• " ��. • . �. " ! � � � . . �- + ., _* �. 1 ' " s ..: -� _... - - � - � -. 7. .. � ♦ .. -:: � ' :i1. � • ._ � • i}. . • , - :. . ... .. . . ._ ._. � �, -., i � - �_ _ , , _�, � _ _ . . - 1�1 -'�. � �' � ' 1: a ••, • -- - �. . ,.� ..r.''1."'►,• ••'� .-:':� �-� ` •�f1- r. � 1. `...: �� • ...�.. � �,� •.� , .:. * ..,. ,1... .. ! / ', � _.<.. �- i�l� __ . +1 - - . . �' . .. ... 1 . • 1. � . ! � � � .. . . � ...._ � _-. � , -� "- .. - . _ . . . .. . -. . � �. .. .. . � . .. �,.. . ., �. .. .� ....� �-.= �- . �_ - 1 • e. f r i i i " ' � r i `ll. _. . . . � ' f _ � 1 '� ! .,.. � ..: � .�' ,.�' :,i �.' _� � ' � � ., i ' !� - . ,. . 1 • e � _._ _ . � � • _�:� a. } � _ :. - �R . � ... _, _� . ,.._ � . 1 . •. .. .. :,-._ �� .. , �— - ��__ ,_ y:. • + • � _ � .. ,. � � �� -. � '. _ . � � � • s •� � � . .. � ,�: --. . _ . �'� ��lp �nsur� thai fixture developener�t is cocisistent �nith cc�mrnuruty g�ais, the r�znain.i�g ��aped i�d shouid b� d�v�lop�d �n a stage� p��nn�d unit basis. '�`he �zrr�nt st�te of ihe ��Y;�� nter is somewhat ented. It is �os� ianportar�t th�t t.i�is ar�a b�c�rne � r��r� �rd`a�ted, coh�sive focal point for the com�a�ity throu�h th� typcs of land us�s d�v�loped, iaovv d�rei�p��ts are designed, a�d the impl��zttation of desi� f �s wk�ch t�rill est�blish an overall . . � �- l i City Council ResoIution N�. S I 04 M.�y 12, 1997 Page S . , . �u _ .�i, s" .i . . � . _ a.. ; t;. , �.. .� � :., . � .-... .�. . , a -� "" , � . �� _ 1 _;, 1 ` �� '�� . ' f �. � .�x. ' !".fi " ,'� . .. i • � ` • .�. ' � f �;. � • �� `" � " . .. _ ..., ia ... -' � _... � -� .�.. ... . - _ _ _ - - :.. • ! �. : �� . ' � :. �1 t. . ! � � � . R �. ... � � � .� a.. . . ,.. � � � i _ l �. � • . � � � ' ±.�.j - .,., :.. � � �. _. ,� � ' ' ...I.R �R .- � ".' _ � .'�� ..... �" 1 �- -.:. ... ,�':��.! ...�� i�tl1 ..��:�`...�� . ., ^... .,. .` .'� _; � '� � ,. � � �� - ! . .� �' . * ". - . � _. . . . !. ' • 1 .: .�.. � _ .� .. � . � . .. _ ! •:.,' . �.. � . ' �:: ' � . .. � -.�• �.�� . ...:,. rr:�f��rf�+ca�au�. c,'o�a�EvcAS�s7i°A°r�%�S.e�a ; ,i � •:. . . , �, ' � �, , • , :,. � �; � � - �;� _ �� : �: �� ,�;_ � - �, , � , .h� �;� � � '' ... �" � , .f:�. � . �' ,�' - �1 'i� • ., i� - :� � ;�.- � "+ _ �' s,. a; �', °� :#. .. `�� ': ,. . �. �ie `� �.;.. ,�'',, , .��.- ,� _, .� ;� :��.`� � ; i�._ ' . _-'�, � .i� . � .; ', � �.: '., .: . .. .. ..,i° � �.� ' `�.� ._� AS, �thony Froperties I�anag�rnent, In�. and Z,o�ise O'I�eil have appiied for approval af a genera� concept pian far' 9he de�ve3opment of a] 6-SCre�n xnavie theat�r, thr�e 1 I,000 square foot office buildings, arrd �vo restaurant sit�s on proper�yy baunded by I-i�ighway 10, L,ong Lake Raad, and County Road �I2, and described �s follows: P�t°� iyic�� so�aih� e�°iy of �t�gerYine a�f S �oo lO of s��th�r�i �/4 of aao w�.sY 1/4 (s�b��ct �o road�, big5w�p ��d ��e�e�) ira S�ct�� 0$, �'m�cship 3Q, re�e �30 �AS, the appli�arats have sub�itted a g��ral concept pi� p�ep�r�d by -� Arclut��ts �nd dai�d 217/97 w�ch sha�rs th� �enerr�ll iocatian of uses �d buildiai�s, w�vays, � park��g areas, access po�rats, access driv�s, buff�r �reas, and open space azsa,s io be left ;�"y undeveloped; and, �REAS, the PUD stipulations attached to the general concept platl specify the maxim�m d�nsiiies, rninimum setbacks and nnaximum building heights to be allowed, ar�d special criteria applicable to the d�velopment to this PIJD; and, �.�REAS, the Maunds View City Couric�l has reviewed the followin� docur€,ents �egarding this proposai: 1. Planning AppiacatioA 2. Zoraing Ti1ap 3. PUD Concept Plan, dated 2J7/97 , 4. Traffie Siu�Y P�Pared by SRi Co�.sulhng;�tai 4/17/97 5. Trafixc Study (far R�staia-ant Sites) prepared by S� Cons�ting, dated 512197 6. Preliminary Drainage Caiculatians 7. Availabie Utility Connact�ons far �4'at�r, Se�er and Storm S�er 8, Marl:�t Scsxaamary 9. S 'es a��Ieighborh�d M�tings {12/12/96, 1/15/9i) �AS, the I'�o�ands �e� City Co�ncil h�s received a recorramendaiion of approva] �rom �he I�ounds Vi�w Plannixa� Com�issiAn �s stated in Flan�ing Camuzussion itesolution No. '; ' SU3m9%, �rld, � ,; : , i Cit�� Cocancil �esolntion No. S I 19 Mar� I2, � 997 Page 2 , < < ��.AS, the proposed g�neraI �o�cept pla� is corasistent �with the Mountis �%iev� Comprehensive Pian and th� requirements of the �Iaunds �iew �L]D �orun� Dzstri�; arid, I�iOV4�, ��, B� Ii �SOL ih�t t�e �ounds View Ci�y �ouncBI does hereby apprave ihe geaeral conc�pt plan far th� 0'Ne�i Property pr�ared by �.M Architects and dated 217/97, sublect to the stipulat�oas containe� ��°Bit I, to the �equir�m�nt Yhat approval be abtained for a development st�ge pian and finaj plat� a� p�oy}�Ed �$��IOn 1 I20.04 Subd. 3 ar�d Subd. 4 aithe Mounds Vi�w �unicipal Cnde, and to the requirement that the foiio�wing �hang�s b� madc to tia� dra�g ofthe ��eral concept plan: 1. Pa�-ceis A and B shail be m�rk�d as restaxarartt sites. 2. T'he northemmost and sauth�ost drive�rays aA �Tig,l�way I O shall be removed. 3- `I'�e driveway on I�a�h�r✓ay � 0 at ti�e �ter of ibe siYe shall b� rr�arked "ri�ht-im, ri��t-aut" .�th a notation that � fiaIl gne�ven��nt in��rsection shall be �Ilio�ved if approved by �nI330T. �. ?'he ref�rence to tixe p��strian brid�e shail be r-�oved. �4PTED tlus 12th day of May, 1997. AT�ST: (S�AL.) R':IDAiA�GROUPSICOI++t�E V1DE V CASESI4'7l -971CCRE5.GCP ,; , ; I}taane McCar°ty, Mayar , � . Charles �. Whiting, Ci �lerk-Administrator � 'o � �. i - � � .. . + � � � ' . �. � ; .- . ,� .. ` . � .i . .. 1� ), • ;. ;: ., + ' ' r. , �1 �. � r s � � �� c> yfl �� , �� o �� s•� U 1 `t� � �. � .� o � y � w � � �;�� ,� � � °ts � � �� a ��. � ti y��'��s ��°� y� � •� ��'�� ; �° �.� o � m o � � � � �� ; � �� m �� m � y � � � � �iy � � � � b � m � � � � � ` � � d � � a � '@(� � � en o � G �.' L3� � �. � � m W � � °� m � � e9 � R� � � � � � � � ��, � y C3 � v, � C� � �' °� ~ .� ` � _ •b. d i � �. m � � o � � � � � � Q a � � � � � � � � � � � � � .Q`� �� . ��y�� m�� ti � � � � � � � � � Av � `� � y y � � �� ffi � �� N .a�e��a�� "w �..� vc�v�c�c�v� ec��wwwco �� r�oc��4nu� {�rrPE!!�—m� �3 � � � � � � Q a � �� fl� � � �1 �1 � � � y�"w � a.�',- e1II t6 � O �' �� .. + . � • ,� :s ; _� , �: :� . � ,. �. T - � � � !. r +�. _ ... _. .e.. ♦ � ._.. �� .��. � � * ._ y ri � �1 i I � � ". � �s.a w� � � � � � � t0 �� y�� c�� j � � � � � � � o.� m � � � � �� om�°ow� � � �� 'a�1� w + � � � � �� ~ � � � CJ � �h�� + y C�� ti � � � � �� h� �� , � c�� i ��m,� 4� ��.°� � � � �� C � Z � � � � � � � � � �� m�� °��o� � � 3 o.�� `o �� °� -�� ,°i� `�� 0 a� � � r 2 "� .� �; w �. r r• •. • � � � � � � � � � � '� � � � � � � � � � �- �° � �°° b) � �� , �� u � .� w �� Z � � O � � � � � � � � � � O ��°� `� `en �� o��e�ma �.csv�a� �ev��s 0) QaG�U � � � � � ��r � .� � y � � �� w �� \ 0 � �i � � � � � � W m � � d � � P � � � � � � � � � �� m� W � � 4�� T A� � �j � o � � °o�D��,°� �m��p�� d��i��n ��o�mm� � ��by°" � � �a� `"�j�m m��a��h �- � � �° - o �, �� o �'�`v o� ��,� �`��roro � � Q � � m �� ° � � � � �� y � a y �� q� � o �$� ��± ��m�'m ��'��o� ��' m � � �'s � � � � � � � i �� n�� v � � � � �� i� m � � �� c� � � � h °' � � � �� p � � p�� m�yy�� a��o � �� h � � � �� °9m��,� � � � �� m o � � � � � ��o � � � a � � . � � � � � � � � d � � � � � � q � � �b �v �.��.� ��m�� da•�h � ° � �� '� a`�`m O � � � � � � 0y � � '� � � a Q � � ��a��a� a� ��' A� � � �� o � � � � ��y�� d�� ,. •� Y� ti� .,-:. .. ..:".. ' ._. t � � � • • � �. �i tE (.. � * � . ` � t _� 1 ;; • r fi � ��, l 1 `. . �. � « R ! f , � AI \ � ' , s � � r. ::: 0 � v .o �� Z m� °� 'a �� y � 1 g � � � � � � � fi � � � � � � Q � � � 0 S � � � b b � � � �� ti � � Q) � � � � � e� � wm «7 � � � �� ;, �� * � . i. r r ' . * ! ' �� ,� � � •� 1 � �ai y °� O � b � � � � � y � �� U � ti h �$� �� d �� °'y � � �'°h aa� � � � a a ��,�� b m � � ��g � � � � � � a � c � m'�� . � � o �'sh� � � C � C � .� ,� ,� � � � � w+ w � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � p,e � � �, � W •!/ � � � � �L� � �� . � . .: +, � � .. a r . . � � � � � � �l 1-� � � w^ Lh�l 1""'� � � � '��p � '°L � � �:: '..,; �l � �p�� y� � a V � � � C7 �c�v� � � � i � � � � � � � � .� � d � Z � � ` p � � � r �� O � � � � � U � � /'� � � � m .� � � ��qq U � � '� � � �/ ` � � � � � � •� o � a � � � � � d O � � � � �� 4 �p� a � a •� � � � .� � � . di 641 a3 y � � � � � i� � � , � _ ., .. _._ �. ,. s --�� 5. � -�.: � .._. .. ti i • r � � , � - _ �r ,. ?, •� ,. -_i � � 5 : ' � � '� w' „ , � � �� '- � r n � i ^ i , '� �� r. . �. � � : � _ �� - � �� 1 " _ � �i '� ,� •� :� I �� '*� r �3 1 . . � . . . _ ,� � � ' �.: . ._ . �::. s : ,� � � .� • .:. � � } � s " � '. :c i n - ;� � � � �� '� " �� . � , � � . � i � �� * * •: .� .� .� � �� ,� . a .� ,� � �1 a l/ I/ � . <� ' . ,� � 1 i ... ^ �� i i !. � � , �� .f a1 � � �1 � � • w " � � ♦ ,.. � +'1 r .-� �l _ . . � ,.�/ �- - � � . ,., .. .., :, ' . il ' ' � ,� . ... � � � � � - . ..: _ , . � �� ! ii i. - q • � � , � i . ' . - .. �� .�. .,: ' .. �_ ±F ��^ � ?A ,..- - � � � a: ,i � ��I • ' _ i e. . � �� z �� ii �� ' � � _ ,� �� 'A �� ... � , � � . -. ., .� '" s . . ' Ai • . ._ .� �� _.. . , ., :i �:' . �. ' ;r . :� • u ,il �� u � s w ' � "* �� ' � �i +. a� ,ii �e ■ �� .. ., . _, __ . �� , .- � � u � �s . <r, .� � s � , - '� :� s r �� \� ,� ' � e ... � .- �� .. �� r R , :... - r i� ' . ' �- - , ' "' � 7 � �i � � � "1 �i"1 � '. # � . „ , , � ,. ,:_ �> ,� �� ti ': .� .� . . , f - ,, ;, �; .� � ,,, � � '� i ' . i , , ,� � _, � � . . ; � � � � �, . . �� . � • � �� * i . � � � r � + :� � � •� �" �:i ' y • r � . � y + � r Fi � s i� � � �� • � � �� r �, ,i� ,. �� .. ._:. � • Sj • � �� • f: . -. :i {' � � y • • � � �. � i e: ', ! t " ,._., ' . . : ... i.. _ _ .. � � _ �1 �. y r � '- � • . . i � . � _� �. r � � ^ x - . � _ 7. _ 1 f 7 � • � } ' , 1, f eT � , � ■ � 4 , � � � a: � * -. �, � r ( i z� i i .� � � y C ). � r ' 1� } 3 �� a � � i . {. + � , ;r t, �/ 1. " . • ;+ �r F ' � � w � !'� r. � ' ,., .:. �• ''� r �' � �'� .� � � .� » � „ } � � n aa � •A � ;, � s # � � � .0 � � � .� �,. � � � � � � � � � � � � � gp a � � . � � � � � � � � � � U a � � � (p �U r3 �I C� i � � � �ai�°e, i � �� i � � � � � � ��q � � � ` ` �% � � � � � � Q W' � Q,i � � � � � � .�. � � e�i S � � -� � � f6 C �, �fJ � � � r � � � i � � Q� w � .a. O y � � � � � � � a � � � � U Ra � � � ��s� � � � � � a CJ �s°ao.� � , ,� , _ „ �,� � �� • ;, ' - . - , �;� , _ .� , . .- � � � �� , . � � r . � ,� � �f i� . • � -. � « :i - . . �. " -. * i •.. �r � - � i. r �� 1' �� . � i•. . . � ... � . �. �.� , .. . :� � ._. � �� ej 1) � �'i � ... � . � .-�.. ;. . _r . . � � �' .. ,i � � * � �� s `� � � " .f e. .... ::� � � � . } � � i , .._. �' f �� ♦ �l � �i r � �� » � �. . . �� , i. i �' ..... � � .. . r � ,r� * - �� » � .' � J .` '* i. .�1 �. � '2 se ! • ,� . t � � .: - � � � � t . , � � ' -. � ., � �� ._ � .: � � � �r + � .12 ..i:. 31 i1 �� ! � � - �. .� � � e � � f , 'i � i + � � � . ��, ) � 7� �� ' l� _ �.f f ._ �.A !._ �` • �, : � �-� -. '; l. . ' � �_ � �� * I► � � �.. { � � � -.t • �. ! � "_ l' \� i 1� � � � i � i � � • � _ � , � } . �' � � r� :� � i �- � "I ' 7l � i�. � f * _ � A � ..�1 ,� � �' ! *� � S' , E. .... . .. . . v,.� _ Qf. .. • 3 f! , . � Qi � � � � � � U tQ d � m � m � � {�q � •,tl W C E •� � � � � � � � � � � � � �l � � � � •� �� _ � U o � � � � ` � 0 � � � � � � � � _ �i1 �, � � � '� +� :1� n � � � i�� /°y f� � � � � � � _1� n'°'v � � e.� � � � � � � � � 1 I '� .. �� .�..t._ , ;:. . , ; >=_ _ - -.; ,, ; , _ , E .. . � � � .. � c a � 7 � � � � � � �1 � � � .� � C) � � � � Ova H I � � b � � � � � � C � �p� � W � 3 O � � g�� dT � H � * ♦� ' • w:l If �1 Ai . f i� � i:l � � } � .. ` . � 11 * � 3 .. 1j i. , .. a * � �. � � ll t /.1 � ; ..R .. ; ; a i r ..., r ..:.. . .. .:. ...... s • � ' � .� � i5 c � � � .. +1 � w � � i � f:. . � .... � ,,. �. ".� � E ' .... }.. . �r .'� !� .,. • �. i a� � , { „ , , .� yr ' �i ;� � , �i � F � . . � . ' ' � i1 i �' ':i.{ !R � � .. .. ..... � i f - ..,_ _' � t � �! 1� 7 ' 1' ::I .9 ♦ r. � � a l s t � � ....., ., ._. � � � w" i ' C �1 s � ! - � ,., R � " :.., .... J • � ' ;; # } r ;El j% i! .�. 1 r •, � � � '� � � r f. • � � I � 1 � f� i1 , , 7 � � lk Y )1 � � i i f ► ' ' + �:1 ii � - . ..�.i � ...:.�' � �._ � � • l • � �. � � � ! :. � � a ' * ../ � � � • � r /� � � 1 l , ! 9. f. • �� R + ^ _ 1: � _�. y i i ' � t � rr n �l __ �r ?� r M • :� � � � ;i a �i i . • i> } 1 ' )1 t � U ! i1 ' • ,� ♦ �1 1.� ;; n , " , d �, i r S . � � + + ` �_ � 1E �� r t� • � a � r i fl T � �: i . y s 7 f} ' � i:� � �� " � � � : . * " , � �,� ., " �� . ��.. w rl �ti !! 1 �� ; � F. {j fl :� 1 ♦1 ,... " ... : r �j :... � ?� -11 � J i ..;` f 'il i1 � � �, � ... . i� .� R ' . }� * " �} � ,� i �� f1 � ti �� .�_ � .� ,�1 � . _ �..... r� . ,:. .. . � i ^ � � ' �� + , 1 � I � 1►.. .it � i � i1 i � i1 +.. 1 �. � � .� '' r ! ! + �� y •1 i� f il 11 _ �f i1 i + 11 • � 1 .1 �i t � 1 �1 �1 ' ti� • � T. � i1 � � f1 ! � �� _.� •1 � i1 1 � 1 . t1 i �� i 11 � �1 � i � ;.. iA �� wi �' * � • s" i i� � �1 i i� �,..� �} " f! i`1 � . . r � .. � . .... i� � � �� 1. �� I.f * �l ! �i � �1 l! '-� � a , � a� � 1 � i }j T f ! �� Yi 1 1 ! ! � r __�.. � �.. f. } � le � * U l} ii ... ., • . �.. .. � ,_ ! t � �. �1 i �" *. � � F � � � I,. ,jl � i • 1 1:. � ' l. � . .... . .. :i. i ' ; • � � • ' �. t � � ' � �, . s } � � il , w . � 1/ ' � ► R 11 � • + ) ! �' � * • S •' ii � �. , w � r � � �: ' • � f � � � � ! ' � 1 , •1 � � r f � � � � i � * � ! � �_ .. ,s � .:�. S � ... _ ' 1_ 1 , 1 � 1 :� # 1 , � \ � ., y � 1 � � f ( f. ' 7 '� 1 � 1 �,- ".� r � � i .,� y. T } � � � a � � - , " � :`4 1 • ! 1 � f) �� r } �� . . r �:. ..__ ,. }{ ?J . i! 1 ' �1 � � �,� � .i • � :� * �'1 � �:� � ii �� i� * . i� �� ♦ � * . i k� �1 �� ♦� .':1 �II . ... � .. .. ��. .. l� r I' 1� � r _ �1 �.. " �� ii i1 !- � � * �) i) � i 11 . �� l:f .� �ry� �p� � W W � � � ` y��y py .= M/ y a � � � .� � � 6f7 � •� � � � ` � U � � � � � � � � � � M � � � �` � � o� � �� $ g � � ffi �I � � �p` W � yWy� A� O ` p�� y� � � �V /c�q W � �V �L_ � � i� � � .� � � � � � � � � � 0�� ca � c� o � � � � ; ;, . , ;: „ � ;, 4. f � � * i� • s � � � '� il •� ;� r a tr �5 * ii T ::f .� ,� q " . 1 .. i ! � e! r �i � �� ,. � I t !I •� rl :J }/ 11 �) ,, � �l 1/ � ` if 1� ' ii f !1 f ,�1 �1 1 � � • � �� i �� ,� . = w� • � . .� n * � �1 , . _ ' � w � � 11 � 1 ;. � 1 / at i � 1 i �� + � �l � � i f1 • � � � ! j, � ; ! e 3'� r � � � � � � � � r { � � a � � 1. � . ' ; ` * . , � SI • �i � i1 i1 : •. . . •I • � 1 .` A� � � .b w '� ," " ;: �. � . ;, ;� . . �� ;, ;� - i1 '. � �1 � � . " + � • �? � ;� .� il �) !) � � i4' � + e� ;i .� ; 3� � � �� J if �• �� :� � !� a4 � � ' ;�i �j r �1 ^ " � �f 1 i' i1 11 f1 i.) * � ai � 11 �1 � � . � 1 �� i �� * .� . . � � ��, ' w ;. . . .� � � �) i� ■ .1 ::I i � e/ � � �I r 1) �1 * �: 1 � 3 � � ,, /� 1 f � � 1 * 1) � �I �) r� _ , i r �i � 9. . ti u • f( « ll �) � r • � i :..� � .... � ,.:... f� • � .� i' .� � " * " '� - i� u � • . � � � e� � *. * � � � ; � , � # .� � �� , . ., . . + � '- r _ , � ;1 , a . ; :; . ,� ; � � i � 1 �: � � 1� � .1 ;. � � 1 f y � . • * - � 11 * } i' � � � � . �i . . . . ... � � � �1 1 � ! � ..', f 4 � �I ! i • :{ � � } � r � • � w .... � '1 .. .� � i ! i, � � � � ,. . _ _:: w ! .� • � , � .� • � � �4 � i .. � �1 � '1 � r 1� �l 1l ' � - ._ ' � � ._ - :�� . , . • . � . ,._ • '� if ::, �1 1 � � "'� ,� �f � �1 � .'.... . .._.... � ..... i� .� .... • - r , �. �� il � �i 1 � � '. i, � R I 1 , • :1. �: ii � .,. i 1: a � �% i * a� r ,. .. . ;� - � � ., m. ; : � _ � i y � � .� . � " � � � �� l°"'°' � � ��y� W � j�� l�' � 1�t � i� e` � r/^ � � � � L : � � � ..a � � � � � O e.i �a., _ 1 .: :: :.: ... .... .::. • .. . .., _ . . ... .... . ....._' ... ...____ . " :. . .. .'. . _._ . _ :._ .:. . �. �'. . _ _ _ . _ ' ' , .: .. . :: . . .. . ' . . . ' �__ � . C-' � � � � � .�.•,: P� Y" � � I I�� r', � F�I � � � � . � � �'.. • 1 � �. ), � .� � � ,. a1 . .� + , � r � r r j 1 � ,/,� 1. f _.� � 4 i Jif s _ � ,... �.1 � �• R 1 � • { • � f y * • � � , .� � .,. �' � ::.�� .. �1 r f � 1 � � � • � ,I .' � �� - '_... r ._ � ...... . .;! �1 \' � r • � '� � t :+ 4 , t � 1 � . � w )I � �� f * � � e �� i� � ! .. ' .__ � l�i '� T :1 M �1 ��.1 .fl :.. L r) ' ii �.� �.i.1 * '�i • � -• � , . Y, r � lt r il � ! 1 � 1 ' � .:. �1 i j � . � �. . * • , 'i �� 3 i ' * � � f .� � � ..' ). i � �� i. . i 1,, � 1 �. � f ' ,^ ! i ♦ � � � ii ,.. f_ � ! �� * � , A �, � i � + a. - ! .. : * � � � 11 + , � • � * i , r R 1 1� �� ► � .�f f + � G * � � .- e . , _� . ll (A �. �l �f T ' t� il - � } ! A ,� :1 � !1 ! i1 * .� : ■ a 5) y ) "i �1 ♦ � 1 s - �1 L !.. A �� 1 � . f! � �� f • • • •} iy ' i I � F I - 1 } ' �� T � s * � .. ! _ - � . r } � .+... � i 1 y ... R ..., ' � .�. �. 1 � i / � 1 • i : ! i� " � _ s S . . � ' �� r i) j � . • * . �! i� � � 11 f �� :` 11 �k � �. � a� ,r � * 11 ` , � � i, � • �i �i il �l :il � � il �I y. :A '+ :1 i I� * �� a �� :� . , , ,. f+ � *j � ► i1 i1 • * r \ � ; '..1 �,. 11 � i � 7 �) !f � ::� �1 11 � � 1 il �� ,; .... 1 � !,. i� !1 � � � � ... � ...- � ,.. 'il )i •1 � {1 �l I , # �� • 11 1 , 1 AI C i� � " il ti:i � � � ..M t `� .,� ... � � .- ��d. t � .� � � � O lj i � . .. i � __.. ; • * • 1 �.. � i! � ' � ,c ) � • i �} �. �� * � .. �_ i 3'_ e� '4 � � � ii! 1 i .1 ! � � + �1 ♦1 S1 i !' , :.� � • 1 � f � .f � ' .� 4 r t � if l/ il � � 11 +1 �1 fl ,� � � a + * � � � r. �r t r� u � � 4 ,� ' t Y.l i.1 ' i1 ' ... �� .... 1 rl Y � � � � iJ � 1.} �1 l iy _ � �.. � � � '.l � r ' i � � � •' ' ii ! tl � r ..._ � � . • ' � , f � �i .1 ...- ._...� il � w �i r • - y ' • �1 �� • I � •� �"_. l � � •y Y{ � � . t � � • �. �: ' 1. 1 � �t �� • � �. � ! I Il * } L' � � I 1 1 � � 1 � a. � � ; _ ♦ ' � �, * i r r � � � � f � f • ' � � �. �.. R � i � . � i � i e � i : � , --- - -------,. , ._ ... , , _ --.. _ - :: ,. _,. , : .. : _.. _._.. � � � � e. � � � � ±y i .� ,> . n � � s i w r. ,� * w � il . . .: +. a � ' _.. � _. � ;� „ . + _ + ; , . ;. � :. . • ;; .,� � wi i .� if `i :ii ,� 7. s r: = " . • �� ;� � il � � il I � i� il � j ' .. i� � i 1 i � . . 1 ....1 • .. � � - � � 1 i � ., E � � i •, � � a r � � � � i - .. . �-...... .. � .w � �1 tl il • • � � y (i . � � � i 1 �.) , . � �� " • ,� A. , .� , - - - � . , • . . . - . - � �' :11 ! * .��.. � 1 ; � � �� 4� � f • 1 i !:r f 1 TI � 1 �. � � , . } � � � I � � � � • f[ ! ." 1 � � r � � � � � � ee/ lI � :, ,; t � , R.. . " � � . . ., - `. : r i � r1 �� :� � 41 � i � ,� +.. l,". . � •. # " s • � F � �s a �. , r i� � I il %'i �� r � 1� ` �/ il �' �� • �� , l ii � .� � • �A . ' � , r� �� . ..:_ �� '� i.l i� � � j� • ;� � � ;, , . ;; ., � ' „ � _ ;_ , ,� . . ,; ' .. � .... 1! t. ` � � * � f t� �� .i1 � �� 'st ' � �� _ �. J� ,. ` �� - 1 �l �1 iJ f y ! � .. � s � � .� ; r s'� ' � � .� +� �� . ' ,, ' , ;, .. ; . ,� . � „ . . . :� a � .�I �. a w � � � �.} + a . rr z� ;� 4' � �, !t }- �� * � �1 w 1? - �� .� •. ! � , �� ,; �� il "� 31 f f I 1.`i ! ,^� ^. ! ;� ._ � '. .� y . :� �� :i .� .� � i ' _. ! . � � � 1 e� � ^ � 1 .... M �1 s . , �l �i � � �i � , . :. . ,, � �� I � ! � , e 5 � i � � � A + � �. ) 4 � 7_ A ^ � t_ � .. • � • � , � � = f .' l i � :... 1 ,. r! � � w . s =5� i r • + s . ^ s , - . ' , . , +! I. f , • 1 t 1 ■ t � � ! ' .� '} t, � .: '. o�.�'� � �� ar, .� or, '� � P�j ��y �v � �^ e�r .��'.. � � � r°' � � �� f G.J � C70,�". �� p� � .�° � � � � � � � � � �ry � LJ � � � � � � � � � � y� ✓ .� � � � . j � � � � i3a � � A � � �,*, � tr+d � � � , � ( �q � � . - �.,., ' e� � � � � � h.�i � � r°� � e�h '� � P� Ar ' ;. ; . , . t: i : � � � � �� `4` � �! � `! .� � � � � M� � � � � � � � w � Om4 S �, L::L� �-T-T � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �p� �O � � � �, - , __ . , �i ,.' ,� ,> >� i ,. ! .� 1, . i1 ' i1 � � � � � �_.. } � .. �i � ,'> '�:. wi � r. � .. � ' � • � a ' . i f � * � r �,, • � ::� (ie • :1 l' �1 • •' R � .... � . � � � ■ A� � ,i:l � \j + * • � r , f 1x .' . "� '� f ' 1: 4� * •1 A .... ♦ � �: . � • -. r .. !. • f � . I. � i � i � s? .6 � �: __ � � W � � � � � � � � � � � � �p� W/ � � � � Q �p� W � � U � � pad � � � � � U r '. ' � i � , ! ... � • �. � � ... �� .. ' ,. � ... � � i� � • � � � T � i. � , � ' : _ : <: ; , �: .', 1; � ; t ' �. � � � �� 1 ' �l:� .1'_ r' .. ._ �� '� �� - ° '.. �� 1"., _ f� <� � �� ! '; �f> : . � � _' . s, ;: ,- �, �� :f� ; � ;'. "�� . �. �� :f ; . . •. �� s ;- : -�. �I" ,. , � ,. , �: . _ �,. , ; ;. `I � ; . ` ��: ,� � :1 '�. , ��_ 1 1� �: �� ': � • �. '1'_ ,'1 • = : :1'� � : �- ;�� :1: ��- �` : :!" �' �.� �; , .- _ •; � �I -.1;�� . �!= " : a `� � :) ` � ;� 1: :i � -:�1. �� - :r. _,1 � � :, _ .�. I � ', �. R' ;i ' � :. � :- _�� : :. '�� ,'f � !. _ �' � _ '. i ' :. R . ) �. -.� _" '; � . � _ � " .� .. .. 4 � . " i_ ,�: : f: � � ' 1:. . � ' " : f 1. f • �. 1' �._' � �� ._ �. �� 1 f ` . � .<'1. � �. .1. :,. .. ! i 1 � �. . . � ', _. .. 1 . l i f ) �...1 "� �!- �. , a '.w, f ', � ' "�. l -' ! ��... �i� l ,. �: - -� �f' � ,. � '' t�: �. - � . � i •-... . � y. , - . �: ' J �. � •; -,r �� • ; . : � �. - . . �. ... _. „ :, 1 .�..: .) . ; ;.'. ; �.;; - K:� r�. � ,/ ; a � �., � _!'. �s � � ��' � .. � �"�... i .....l. a ► New cla�sification: Pl�ned Un€t D�velopffi�t (PIJ�) for c��erc�al uses. ��: �.�:� �� - " ��f' �� _ .,'� � t _::_ � . �.-. . �. • '� �-�� : �� - � . s � ._ . i • � _ a . �� °� � - � �:_ • , •� y�� •� .Y � --. - • r �i - � . •" � :."t . f � a r . • . � . :: =� � - " � � � i s. t.`- • 1 �. � ,: � , i R . �� " . � � : �. '-. � :�. � 'f � �. i : � � � � . ; .: .. � � .1.. } f' ': ! ! -�. :", � _..:, � _.:._ . } �. '. L i �....�. .� !' l: • t� `. • ' �� - � . � � '1: -- ' i �- 1 ' � . : 7! . ' � � �! -�.. � � � - � � -' .:. � ".. '� �, • i. �. .� �. . 1 '- � : / ": -� - ' � . - t..:.. � . -" � . ) . / .. .►. � 1. R�d by th� City Cs�unc�l of Yh� City of I�ounds �i��r this 12th day of �1ay, 1997. ��d �d gassed by the Ci9.y Coi�c� of tkie City �f ��ds ��w �s 27i� day of �Y, 1997. /// / 8 � / I' �II� ��, �y0i � , , ; ; , i� +.. �.�_. �.� � !�� ._ � ..... �.. . .. -�� • -� '��a *i• � �• � �y� �. _. r� . ,. .,-,;. ..,��... ,� . ,. , - -- . _ _ ---- -- _.. _; - - -- �i i f f`�.� V�� \ i 1 � \. � a _ _; � � � � ��_ � � I --- ��1� sCa,��: i ° = �oo� � G,4RM1 K� I b MOUNDS V I E]N, MN hiL�M ?�r�GHIiE!". i 5, 1NG. .tG� N�. �60�i �2�05�� cau�rY �o�� rr�rxorr� g:�op�Rxz�s R.et csaal� � _ �' r,ovesa,+.ma i27'7fl Caii Raado �Ce L270 Balls�, T 1 (er�> sgt— � �� (grz) se��a� i � _ � — f _ /�rt�� - _ .m � , � _ e e - _ _ _ � m m � � ^= ^ =S.°^=°-_ �^"" _' �� r'] : .•\ i � ? � � /.• ; . � � `,�� . 4 ^�- J�- �f" _ �, i � \' . ; ,4--.--.�_✓.' !C - �,';' :; jf,� , � ! i \'• ,\ Bg � �;D:f�•` ;:��,/ � , � � . . ,�� : , . . . , . . :, s� � ••3 ;'� ,c. . . .�OA• � �H 13� i�:,/ F � yi I�� '•�. ,po .� � A i;:' ` µ ,� � a � I ��° � ' . . . , , � � . . . . . .ga� . . ' 'r6 �� 6 � � t '� ��$ $i �- \' :I: �a � �� --- �--..._ .�p.�_—. _.__ ��.----�---- �-'� / f � --- -- -�-- � � "� p � a y� � — — �' �$a � �,� „ � `� �� I . . � — __ _ o .� _ \ a �4, � a� r 9� "' . '�-: ` � a '�, � �a� �� i � e ! � aF � -_:�:� `� d� `' �g �ae � � � . : ; �' � P . ti° / E [� C � R �� $� ( --�: i =�ei ��e� � ' � , j� �roa �� g rl _ � 4.t''� 1'�. / g ey I _ s .��_. .... " � i $ �a t � � �� I _ � ` �-•� : � ' � �� /� ' �� < i � � - -- —I- ' _ "� � `-,�..�'�.,� .o`'r� a �. �+ � �N,/o° 9 $ � �P PH�� b �� e, `' �� /.%� , � �� e � �s � A� �aa �7�� , �o� , g �; G•��3 � � � _ � �� " � ' ' :� ` ,' P�`a o = 9g b a � 6. � � :i —+— � •a '�o � �=E i � a b� „� ��` � � :I '4 � /.' '' � �� = e � � � �88 �,g� . � �}I i� � ` � � /,/' y Y _ i � ��yi � � 1� 6 e � �i.� ,p ¢ .�/' � � � H � � S -� �^� I ` / \1 /� j I �� SY \\�''/ , � _� � ' �t • � ,'/ � \ c C] q � O\ ` � 6 � � s = � � ,� � m g�� 1 .. �� e i � r � � � a � � i�// �� .: u a �- i . ,' / / �� jI ' • ""' � �, "" /�� \ ; J � .. + � .�� ,.•� i� eoCEW00� GRI E ' "_i' � "_"�'_—" '�"„' __ .... �.... . �� - � -- /i � / i � , i � i � ; �. i , y. `� � /� /� i ; � ; I °Y: � / � � N i O -----•-•__�•----�.s� /,: �., /// I ; ' � i � i � a� � / ' // � � � � � . S � i" �/ 1 ' I li : .. a ; , � � $� '� �j °� E� � tY# ' .� �° � E�� 1�� ijP �� s y T �' 1=�; � �� : ' aj �� E� +t � _ �" i � Q i � g ��i ��E�{ �-� (� �3! p � S �1 �{ t F =� ,t I I f `�� yi � �� . et } + �: � � �$ � �tt �'f si� !e : t d }� � !1 �t J � (d i� ��9 �54 �� ;a : � �E�� t t �i � i '/' s r A : �i� �� +I t�'� � �t� } ( ! � � !: t: �`� �� 3� j IS �i� : � � � � :a ` � � ' � � � / � � � t t� t�,a � i► I� � &�; � � ; s � �� , �,a _,� � tF� ; � ; � f � # ' , I � ��3� ` �P�-� g 1�T� $ a � $ � ( �� {} r;1 �^ i_ P � _ � � y -1 :8 e fl � ° E � %/ � .- jj - � � ( �l�t il � � � 11 F 1 � � ."-8 St 1( ��{ � G � / • � � 1� i{� �r 4. � ;• a � � � # 'f t � �; i �; r,� _ � � _ _ , CAfii�ItC� �1N�R�9s�a�. IPI�. �� , ^"�*, ��' �"o• °� — ` 7fi SCREER! THEATRE � � �� .im8�wwea;2 ��F � �� RA�UN6S VIE1fl! . !V{i@FlWESOTA �a:�°-9 , — �d�..e,..W,� . _ � �. � � ,J � I': � .# 0 .�N' �m� i, � �� 1 � ~ ,C p � % / pe g / f . �� ♦ . f' 1 �' i /� '1 / i� � , i / %. f' /,�� ', � / � •.YOy� � I / . ya �br �, t a � �j � : � �� v � � ,p r na� ` l�1��' �� ii. i ` , �0� _�1 �� 9 �6 =Y� ; '. /�J i g ?: tii f �/` ?c cl��, � � �e I `'f ,� .� ,a ;H y :, � =,, iI� ,' 4� Y��@� , ; e , e £ :; �q '� 5� -' � ��(; � 9 '� � 9e i � ,U.. \ .� . . �� _ � } � I� ' �` �� r �'� R�I� ' �� i��,;�C/ % L�.J , ,� t;, .'_ �i � p�w / ��.� .aii� i� '�-^ ,-'�. 1C- a�a \ ! ;i I , , i r )i ' ' { .-� _� � — _ _ _ ' � _ ! ° �__x i � i� _ - , ,/ —eE " y _.so '_ "_"—'_�."__ _"_"_'_ '_ EDGEWCOOUAIYE ��l \�/ T;..�, �}"�� f ,Id' �a 1 , a ' „ � �' . ~�` �}�� ,�;' �e; 4;I° �'% , �' ' � , ' , . o � M � ��QQ.E� �� .G� 9E ^ �' . � , w' �Oa�� • � /�/ / :p ~ '''/ � � � ' � i I � I . , /• �/ � � ! � � � =��I� ��i ;�� !��1��fI �C =i; �; f; i1 ' 1iE i#��"''�''F `(� {; �Ir�l'r,�'•i�t( f�; �3j : ;{�I( !;� j�i1(u :(j�� ljj� t;i).�t� rl�i ��t ` ',i. �e �� , t=� I o� e� �7 I , �( I1 trt �� F� 1 1�I� !.�' t�� ll; 1 . -1�f � lli� � �� + �•� �a �r� � 1 : � f �• Iad � � i{ f Q � I p( t E ' fti b, ! i i � i � � � � � f � , �, ��:�� ,,! �Y �; # : F f ,N'�• � . i �i • f,{ t , {•, 3(I 1 � � �[ f � 1� �� + � (�l - 1 a• , � E 1 i� �� (�,. f 9In i!] �,� f 4� ` �__-_ �( � �a 3i+ � l��# iEt 'J �� ' ;.� • i�' ��d•Eii��l;� �� f 1�� j�ji '�� #' [I' � I�� 1� �� I��'�j ` t4di� j�f"j E t{J' ��i<'� ;t i f ,� : > > - � �i � E �� , �• 1� �{II lt 1= � ! 1t , ►f i! t��•, �; i� sa : j, �. } � �j+s,p . �., ,,, F �� u � i I � i1 i + I �! , �� , �j a� i } +� �� i 'l 1 ! � �. i � � i� 1.�• �� 1 i i 1 i!� � � ii ' i � ( .r .E �r1 t�iEi F 1. ;i ,'{��1l�� !�i = �.e % 1]� (b iii� I� f�+•� i�,i; y�� f �' �• � ` � ' , ',��• � i �I ��11 ,j f )� s�� r ,�s.! 1ii�e '� , � � �if[j _� �ffif��rle f �' �� ji ei ��I�tEtl''ii i � ��i �,��'�;� il[ f �Fr �� `€�P °�� ,�l��1 �� ' t� f �a � ��[I i$��; � m� � ��I�� it��.�. ��i�r. � -- � � 0� a 1� S�REEW S�de � ^r��Jag�G�m�p.�.. F ! � .m>,.� THE9TRE .�,�, } � j �4N31�aLi2 �.rorr.a ._ �° �^— �,. � � tvsaurvos vt�w , ro��wnt�snr� �.�" , ° ��,° ; . :`�� ` MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION May 6, 1998 7 :00 P.M. REGULAR METING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes: March 18, 1998 April 1, 1998 5. Planning Case No. 523 -98 Property Involved: 2200 Highway 10 Consideration of Resolution No. 545 -98 Approving a Development Review Request for a Bowling Alley Expansion Applicant: Mermaid, Inc. (Dan Hall) 6. Planning Case No. SP062 -98 Consideration of Resolution No. 546 -98 Regarding A Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Community Centers Within a B -3 District (Ordinance No. 617) Staff Reports/Information Items Comprehensive Plan Discussion 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR AT'IbNDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717 -4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. April 15, 1998 (Special) 2. Meeting Adjournment PLA \nIVG COYIMISSIOV MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission, From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Comprehensive Plan Community Forum Summary Date: May 6, 1998 Attached is a copy of the draft Comprehensive Plan Community Forum summary which staff has developed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and comment on the draft document. Staff will then finalize the document for release to the public. N:IDATAI GROUPS ICOMDE'VIPLANCOMM15- 6- 98B.MEM 1998 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMUNITY FORUMS To assist in the updating of the comprehensive plan, the Mounds View Planning Commission conducted three community forums. The. Planning Commission conducted these forums to help Mounds View citizens understand what the comprehensive plan is and most importantly to give citizens a chance to talk about what Mounds View should be like in the future. Forums were held on February 11, 1998 for people who live north of Highway 10, on March 11, 1998 for the Highway 10 corridor, and on April 8, 1998 for people who live south of Highway 10. Notices of the forums were mailed to all property owners in the in the City. Notices were distributed to apartments and to mobile home parks. Additional notice was provided through articles in newspapers and in the Mounds View Matters. Nineteen citizens attended the first forum, thirty eight citizens attended the second forum, and twenty eight citizens attended the third forum. During the forums city staff presented information on what a comprehensive plan is, what the required elements of the comprehensive plan are, what the current comprehensive plan and zoning designations are, what some of the housing and other issues are, and what the process for updating the comprehensive plan will be. Following the staff presentations, small group discussions were held to hear citizen concerns, comments, issues, etc. A Planning Commission member was present in each of the small groups to listen and to facilitate the discussions. At the end of the forums, each Planning Commission member summarized the discussions in their groups. The following is a summary of the citizen concerns and comments grouped by major area: Forum No. 1 Housing 1. Improve housing stock without subdividing large lots. Provide incentives to maintain large lots especially for those with outdated homes. 2. Additional information on the condition of housing stock needed. 3. Low cost remodeling loans are needed to encourage housing maintenance and improvement. 4. Citizens need information on remodeling possibilities. 5. Homeowners need to know how to protect their properties from neighborhood blight. 6. Code enforcement is necessary. 7. Truth - in-housing regulations are needed to require houses to be brought up to code. Land Use 1. Expansion of commercial along Highway 10 will add problems for Mounds View. 1 2. No more apartment buildings are needed. 3. The homogeneous mix of uses along Highway 10 should be continued. 4. Rezonings which create nonconforming classifications within an existing district should be prohibited. 5. A mini - storage use should be developed on the city -owned property at County Road 1 and Eastwood. 6. Do not rezone residential to commercial or business. 7. No more strip commercial is needed. 8. The property on the north side of Hillview from Quincy to 35W should be zoned medium density. 9. Golf Course should be designated CRP. 10. The Industrial area adjacent to the golf course should stay. 11. No new developments along Highway 118. The park and tree buffers should remain. 12. If manufactured home parks are redeveloped, they should be only replaced with low and medium density homes. Transportation 1. No sidewalks should be required. 2. Trail system is inadequate because of Highway 10. The trail system should connect to Shoreview, Fridley, New Brighton, and along Highway 10. The trail system should be designated in the comprehensive plan. 3. Keep MTC bus service as is. 4. Street maintenance is adequate. 5. Better speed limit enforcement is necessary. 6. Do not upgrade Anoka County airport. 7. Flight paths should be defined. 8. Any future vacation of Highway 10 right -of -way should be reserved for public use. 9. Does the City plan to extend Woodlawn to the north. Several lots currently do not have have street access. 10. The Long Lake Road Highway 10 intersection should be reconfigured to have 1 left turn lane, 1 thru lane, and 1 right turn lane in each direction on Long Lake Road. 11. City streets should not be widened. Miscellaneous 1. Don't use city tax dollars to buy real estate. 2. Consideration needs to be given to correction of problem areas in the City's surface water management plan. Forum No. 2 Housing 2 1. There is a good mix of housing stock. 2. The City needs townhome developments like have been developed in the New Brighton downtown area and at Mississippi and University area in Fridley. This could possibly occur at the two northerly manufactured home parks. Land Use 1. Houses along the south side of Highway 10 just west of the Mounds View Business Park should be designated for industrial use. 1 Family restaurants are needed. 3. Business /shopping center development should include hardware, grocery store, coffee shop, health clinic, and office type uses. They should be located along Highway 10 from Amoco station to Groveland and across from the proposed theater. 4. The Towns Edge Terrace manufactured home park could redeveloped as industrial. 5. Buffer residential land use from commercial land use. Stepped land use buffers should be considered. 6. Physical buffers including beans, sound barriers and landscaping should be provided by developers between residential and commercial uses when redevelopment occurs. 7. Land usage along county roads should stay as is with the exception of a limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses with architectural standards. Transportation 1. Make Highway 10 more pedestrian friendly especially with new development. Crossing Highway 10 is a problem. 2. Pedestrian/bike path issues along Highway 10 need to be addressed. Bike paths should be provided between the Highway 10 ditch and the commercial uses. 3. Connect the two sides of Highway 10 with a pedestrian bridge. 4. Do not expand Anoka County airport. 5. Scrap the ring road concept. 6. A circulator type transit system would be helpful. 7. Provide a tunnel to provide a passage from the theater to the community center area. Miscellaneous 1. Regulate business hours. 2. The City should require utilities to be under grounded. 3. The City should maintain consistency of policy. 4. The City should work to create a sense of identity for the community which could include a continuity of appearance of new construction along Highway 10. 5. The City should consider a code amendment to limit parking of campers, boats, etc. Forum No. 3 3 Housing 1. There needs to be a unified plan on how to handle redevelopment of older residential areas and properties. There are problems with non compliance now. 2. Housing needs to be upgraded and maintained. 3. There is too much rental housing. 4. Large Lots should be subdivided and Spring Lake Road should be extended south to provide access. Incentives should be provided to encourage subdivision. 5. Large lots should not be subdivided. 6. Point of sale requirements should be instituted to disclose code deficiencies but not require correction. 7. Loans and grants and other programs should be provided to upgrade housing. 8. Residents need to clean up their properties. Land Use 1. When the opportunity arises Towns Edge Terrace should be redeveloped as industrial. 2. There should be no residential fronting Highway 10. 3. The theater property should have a higher fence and/or a landscaped berm with conifers. 4. Residential developers should keep as many trees as possible when developing new or redeveloping old housing. 5. R -2 uses acceptable along County Road H2 at Long Lake Road but not for properties away from H2. - 6. Commercial developments should blend in with the community instead of providing blank brick walls towards community. Landscaped berms and a more residential design and feel should be provided. 7. Harstad property on the Long Lake Road wetland should not be developed. The type and number of homes which could be developed can not be determined until the extent of the wetland is determined. Drainage problems could occur along Louisa, Clearview, and Ridge Lane if the property is developed. Increased traffic would cause safety concerns. 8. Harstad property should remain zoned R -1. 9. Controls of adult businesses need to be put in place. 10. If more commercial is to developed it should be along Highway 10. 11. Highway 10 should be main downtown area. 12. Any rezoning from residential to commercial should be considered on a case by case basis. Transportation 1. A unified trail system should be provided joining both sides of Highway 10 including a 4 Housing 1. There needs to be a unified plan on how to handle redevelopment of older residential areas and properties. There are problems with non compliance now. 2. Housing needs to be upgraded and maintained. 3. There is too much rental housing. 4. Large lots should be subdivided and Spring Lake Road should be extended south to provide access. Incentives should be provided to encourage subdivision. 5. Large lots should not be subdivided. 6. Point of sale requirements should be instituted to disclose code deficiencies but not require correction. 7. Loans and grants and other programs should be provided to upgrade housing. 8. Residents need to clean up their properties. Land Use 1. When the opportunity arises Towns Edge Terrace should be redeveloped as industrial. 2. There should be no residential fronting Highway 10. 3. The theater property should have a higher fence and/or a landscaped berm with conifers. 4. Residential developers should keep as many trees as possible when developing new or redeveloping old housing. 5. R -2 uses acceptable along County Road H2 at Long Lake Road but not for properties away from H2. 6. Commercial developments should blend in with the community instead of providing blank brick walls towards community. Landscaped berms and a more residential design and feel should be provided. 7. Harstad property on the Long Lake Road wetland should not be developed. The type and number of homes which could be developed can not be determined until the extent of the wetland is determined. Drainage problems could occur along Louisa, Clearview, and Ridge Lane if the property is developed. Increased traffic would cause safety concerns. 8. Harstad property should remain zoned R -1. 9. Controls of adult businesses need to be put in place. 10. If more commercial is to developed it should be along Highway 10. 11. Highway 10 should be main downtown area. 12. Any rezoning from residential to commercial should be considered on a case by case basis. Transportation 1. A unified trail system should be provided joining both sides of Highway 10 including a 4 pedestrian bridge across Highway 10. 2. Sidewalks should be provided along Highway 10. 3. There should be no realignment of city streets, specifically Louisa and Clearview. 4. There should be no expansion of Anoka County airport because of noise, safety, and pollution issues. Low and loud planes are a problem even in the southern part of Mounds View. 5. A design theme is necessary for Highway 10. 6. Sidewalks should be provided on the north side of County Road I from Silver Lake Road to Fridley and on the north side of County Road H2 from Edgewood to Silver Lake Road. 7. Create a boulevard effect on Highway 10 with low retaining walls and landscaping. 8. There should be sidewalks and bike paths along Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road to match with New Brighton. 9. Traffic is too fast on Woodcrest. 10. There is too much commercial truck traffic in residential areas (i.e. Edgewood Dr.). 11. Existing trails should be maintained. Miscellaneous 1. Deteriorating conditions of properties and infrastructure is a problem. Problems should be worked on now before it gets worse. 2. There are surface water issues along County Road I. County Road I needs to be regraded so water drains properly and to prevent erosion and flooding. 3. The school system is great. 4. Roberts Off 10 needs some work. 5. Nuisance properties should be marketed to developers before city considers buying the properties. 6. More enforcement of codes is needed. 7. Flooding at Woodcrest Park needs to be addressed. 8. Planning Commission meetings should be televised. 5 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: May 6, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 523 -98 Request: Development Review Petitioner: The Mermaid Location: 2200 Highway 10 Area: 6.54Acres PIN Nos.: 08- 30 -23 -34 -0007 Zoning/Land Use: B -3, Highway Business District / Mermaid Entertainment Center Applicable Regulations: Development Review: Section 1006.06 requires that all commercial and industrial development within the City be subject to review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. • Setbacks: Section 1104.01 establishes the principal building and parking lot setbacks. These will be addressed in the analysis section of this report. • Parking Requirements: Section 1121.13 sets the requirements for parking ratios. Summary: The applicant, Daniel Hall, representing the Mermaid, is requesting a development review to allow for the expansion of the existing facility by adding eight additional bowling lanes to the north side of the building. The addition would consist of 7,226 square feet which would necessitate the construction of 40 parking spaces. The site is currently zoned B -3, which is not the appropriate zoning district for a bowling alley. Because of this, the Mermaid can be considered a non - conforming use until such time that the zoning is changed or zoning code amended to allow for such a use in the B-3 district. The property fronts Highway 10 and also County Road H, the neighboring uses include the Perkins Restaurant, The Rent -all at the Corner of Highway 10 and County Road H, and the Mounds View Business Park to the west. Planning Commission Report Merrnaid Entertainment Center Planning Case 523 -98 May 6, 1998 Page 2 Analysis: Dimensional Requirements: Building Height: Building Setbacks • Front (Highway 10): • Front (County H): • Side (Perkins) • Side (Business Park) Parking Lot Setbacks • Front (Highway 10): • Front (County H): • Side (Perkins) • Side (Business Park) Drainage: Required Provided S 45 feet 18 feet 30 feet 30 feet 10 feet 10 feet 30 feet 30 feet 10 feet 10 feet 140 feet 260 feet 60 feet 60 feet 18 feet 75 feet 0 feet 0 feet Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No The impervious surface on this site takes up nearly 100 percent of the area. The proposed addition adds 7,226 square feet of building area to the site, yet replaces an equal amount of parking area. The net effect is that no additional run-off is expected as a result of this development. The Rice Creek Watershed District will need to review this development proposal and issue a watershed permit before construction can begin. Parking: The parking ratios as required in the City Code, Section 1121.13 for bowling alleys and the other on -sites uses are as follows: Bowling Alleys: Dining and Lounge: Kitchen area: Office: 5 spaces per alley 1 space per 40 s.f. 1 space per 80 s.f 3 spaces plus 1 per 175 s.f 32 lanes = 160 spaces 12,228 s.f = 306 spaces 516 s.f = 7 spaces 930 s.f. = 9 spaces Total required: 482 spaces Staff counted the stalls present on the site and came up with a total of 515 spaces, 18 of which are being used temporarily for the outdoor volleyball court. Thus, at present, the site is overparked according to the Code requirements. With the proposed expansion there would be 505 spaces on the site, a net reduction often spaces. This figure is still more than what would be required with the eight additional lanes. The plan however, shows the stalls at 9 foot by 18 foot dimensions, instead of the Code- required 9 by 20 foot dimension. The shorter, 9 by 18 parking stalls have Planning Commission Report Mermaid Entertainment Center Planning Case 523 -98 May 6, 1998 Page 3 been allowed only for perimeter parking where an overhang of the car into greenspace may occur. These allowances, however, have been allowed as part of a PUD. The other issue with regard to the parking as shown on the site plan is the reduced setback from the north and west property lines. The parking areas are shown to be at the property line instead of set back by the required 10 feet. The existing parking lot setback along the western property Iine is five feet. If the parking were to be constructed according to the plans provided, as much as two feet of some vehicles would be extending into the neighboring property. Staff would recommend that the site plan be redrawn to (1) show 45 degree angled parking around the proposed addition which would allow for the continuation of the five -foot parking lot setback from the property lines and the addition of a five -foot sidewalk around the perimeter of the building and (2) show concrete curb and gutter along the north parking lot. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 545 -98, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of this development review as requested by the Mermaid Entertainment Center, with stipulations. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:IDATAIG ROUPSICO MD EVIDE VCAS ES1523- 981523 -98. PC I CI CI CF p.. r„H iii,'::. lift "PiL PdYET1eli��Q CO DEVELOPMENT DEPARTIYIENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN�}551 i1 V 12 -71 / -4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant A'io lL. L L . i_________...61.„_____________ Telephone 7 � L- 0 3 b Address rL,��0 1 i7 Fax ) 7 z-i bl U 7 Ut (Etj — - Ingest in Property (check appropriate box) Owner ofProperty 0 Contract for Deed Owner 0 Lessee, Operator, Manager 0 Other (explain)' _. Agreement to Purchase Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property owner must si n this application property, you mast provide a letter o g pp ton for it to be accepted. -�� = - p f permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The ;. d � . z--, M f #i Property Description/Proposa1 _ s� ,. , Address or General Location -- `�te�rrry�► - . - . - Legal D iption • ,y.. -, , . , Z Property Identification #'(PIN #) # of Acres . Current Zoning Type of Application -- . O Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Rezoning O Major Subdivision - • Minor Subdivision • Planned Unit Development (PUD) o PUD Amendment ❑ Conditional Use Permit o Variance - - O Code Appeal Develop Review /Site Plan • Wetland Alteration Permit • Wetland Buffer Permit • Floodplain Permit • Other r. $250 5250 /acre; min $250 max $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* $200 ..... Refer to rezoning fees $350 R -1, R -2 $75; all others $250 R -1, R -2 5100 all others $250 5100 $125 /acre; min $125 max $750 R- I, R -2 5150; all others $200 R -1, R -2 $25; all others $100 $200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN Develo merit Application Pa e 2 Present Use of Property ,❑ Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ . ' Single Family Dwelling �❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ ` Multi - family Dwelling Ie. Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification ❑ Abstract Description of Proposal ❑ - Torrens LitIvE S BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Si attire of Applicant .:r Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner /lame of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner k) )79_ 7 3 5 6 • ***************************************************************,* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *gi* * * ** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. 60-day Limit 120 -day limit Fees Paid: Application: ri 5 0• do Park Dedication: Deposits: otal: Account # et Check # Receipt # NA DATA1GROUPSICOMDEVTORMS1DE'VAPP -FOR 1198 529 w(..) 5297 5294 529 5294 529 0 0 n LN N 5275 EDGEW00D JR. HIGH SCHOOL P 0 13 TOWNS EDGE TERRACE MOBILE HOME PARK 4825 4860 B -3 Zoning Map Applicant: Location: Planning Case 523 -98 The Mermaid 2200 Highway 10 INTERSTATE 35W NO' MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 545 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE MERMAID ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, 2200 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 52398 WHEREAS, the Mermaid has requested City approval to expand its operation at 2200 Highway 10 by adding eight additional bowling lanes; and WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application, dated 4/17/98 2. Zoning and Location Map 3. Site Plans, date - stamped 4/17/98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements as set forth in Chapter 1104 of the Municipal Code, with revisions to the site plan dated 4/17/98, can be met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of a development review for the Mermaid Entertainment Center, to allow for the addition of eight bowling lanes, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Prior to City Council approval of this development review, the site plans shall be redrawn to show (1) concrete curb and gutter on the parking area along the north property boundary, (2) the inclusion of two van - accessible handicap stalls, (3) a sidewalk along the western edge of the addition to connect with the existing and proposed sidewalks, and (4) 45 degree angled parking in the area of the expansion, as shown on or similar to Exhibit 1. If the resulting parking counts fall below 482 spaces, a variance will need to be obtained from the Planning Commission. 2. Before permits are issued for this expansion, the applicant shall: a. Obtain a Rice Creek Watershed District permit. b. Enter into a development agreement with the City. Planning Commission Resolution 545 -98 Mermaid Development Review May 6, 1998 Page 2 BE IT FURTHER .RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 6th day of May, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL NA DATAIGROUPS ICOMDEVNDEVCASES1523- 981545- 98PC.RES Exhibit L Planning Commission Res. No. 545-98 Mermaid Development Review May 6, 1998 5' Setback \\\\\\\ Mounds View Business Park Perkins 4- 45 °Angled Parking /7- 45 °Angled Parking 5' Setback PLAN \ING COVIVIISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission, From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Ordinance Amendment Concerning Permitted Uses in a B -3 Zoning District Date: May 6, 1998 ISSUE The Community Center site is currently zoned B -3 Highway Business. At present the City's zoning code does not permit a community center as either a permitted use or a conditional use. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS An ordinance change is necessary prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for the new community center under renovation/construction on the site of the former Bel Rae Ballroom. The City Attorney's office has reviewed the matter and has provided two alternative ordinance amendments for City consideration. The first alternative is to make a community center a permitted use and the second alternative is to make community centers a conditional use and to set standards for the issuance of conditional use permits. The attorney's draft ordinances also include other similar uses such as public or semi - public recreational buildings, schools, and churches. ACTION REQUIRED Staff would suggest that the Planning Commission discuss this matter at the May 6, 1998 meeting and determine which approach to follow and pass a resolution recommending that the City Council pass the appropriate ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission pass the attached Resolution No.546 -98. N:I DATAIGROUPSICOMDEV IPLANCOMM15 -6 -98. MEM .RESOLUTION NO. 546-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAIVISEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 617; AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING, THE B-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THE PERMITTED USES THEREOF, AND AMENDING TITLE 1114, SECTION 1114.02 IN THE MOUNDS VIEW CODE; PLANNING CASE NO. SP062 -98. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows Public or semi - public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers, public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions, such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues in the residential zoning districts with the approval of a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the above mentioned uses may result in potential impacts similar to uses permitted or uses allowed by conditional use in the B -3 Highway Business District; and WHEREAS, B -3 zoning districts are located within close proximaty to residential zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the above mentioned uses will provide necessary services to citizens residing or working in adjacent neighborhoods and the surrounding community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of Ordinance No. 617, an ordinance relating to zoning, the B -3 Highway Business District and permitted uses thereof, and amending Title 1114, Section 1114.02 in the Mounds View City Code, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Attest: Adopted this day of , 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director 1V:IDATAIGIZOUPSICOMDE VIPLANCOMM1PCRESOSICOMCNTR.RES April 27, 1998 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 telephone (612) 337 -9310 fax e -mail: attys @kennedy- g €aven.com Mr. Rick Jopke Community Development Director CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 SCOTT J. RIGGS Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9260 e -mail: sriggs @kennedy- graven.com VIA FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL RE: B @3 Highway Business District Ordinance Revision Options Dear Rick: Per our previous discussions concerning this matter, please find following two draft ordinance revisions concerning the City's B -3 Highway Business District. The first proposed draft ordinance (involving Sec. 1114.02) makes it a permitted use for a community center, etc. in the B -3 district, while the second proposed draft ordinance (involving Sec. 1114.04) makes it a conditional use for community center, etc. in the B -3 district. Obviously, only one of the draft ordinances will be adopted. Please note that both proposed revisions are based upon language contained in Sec. 1106.04, Subd. 1 of the Municipal Code. After you have had a chance to review this matter, please let me know what changes, if any are necessary to implement the required changes to the B -3 district to allow the community center. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerel Scott J. Ri SJR:s cc: Mr. Chuck Whiting Ms. Cari Schmidt Mr. Bob Long SJR142327 ',,U245 -4 Draft #1 ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING, THE B -3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THE PERMITTED USES THEREOF, AND AMENDING TITLE 1114, SECTION 1114.02 IN THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 1114.02 of the Mounds View Municipal code shall be amended by inserting the underlined and italicized language, to read as follows: 1114.02: District: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B -3 All permitted uses as allowed in a B -2 Limited Business District. Amusement centers. Auto accessory stores. Commercial recreational uses. Grocery stores, supermarkets. Motels, motor hotels and hotels; provided, that the lot area contains.not less than five hundred (500) square feet of lot area per unit. Private clubs or lodges serving food and beverages with use being restricted to members and their guests. Adequate dining room, kitchen and bar space must be provided according to standards imposed upon similar unrestricted customer operations. The serving of alcoholic beverages to members and their guests shall be allowed; provided, that such service is in compliance with applicable Federal, State and Municipal regulations'. Offices of such use shall be limited to no more than twenty percent (20 %) of the gross floor area of the building. ' See Chapters 501, 502 and 503 of this Code; see M.S.A. Chapter 340A. SJR142323 MLT205 -4 Public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers, public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions, such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues. Rental stores. Restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, on and off -sale Iiquor. Taxi terminals, stands and offices. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View the day of , 1998. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1998. Duane McCarty, Mayor Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk -Admr. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney SSR142323 1U205 -4 Draft #1 ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING, THE B -3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THE CONDITIONAL USES THEREOF, AND AMENDING TITLE 1114, SECTION 1114.04, BY INCLUDING A NEW SUBDIVISION 11 IN THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 1114.04 of the Mounds View Municipal code shall be amended by inserting the underlined and italicized language, to read as follows: 1114.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a B -3 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 11. Public or semi- ublic recreational buildin s and nei hborhood or communi centers, public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions, such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues; provided, that: a. Front yard depths shall be a minimum o thir ve eet 35' . b. Side ards shall be no less than thin eet 30' . c. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02, subdivision 2b(3). d. Ade irate screenin om abuttin residential uses and landsca in is rovided inin dance with _Section 1103 08 of this Title. e. Ade irate o - street arkin and access is rovided on the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a public street to the principal use in compliance with Chapter 1121 of this Title and that such parking is adequately screened and landsca ed om surroundin and abuttin residential uses in compliance with Section 1103.08 of this Title. SJR142319 MU2OS -4 f Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Chapter 1122 of this Title. g. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision le of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View the day of , 1998. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1998. Duane McCarty, Mayor Charles S. Whiting, City Clerk -Admr. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert C. Long, City Attorney SJR142319 MU205 -4 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1998 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 1998 5. Planning Case No. 524 -98 Property Involved: 2824 Woodale Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 547 -98 Approving a Variance for a Reduced Front Yard Setback Applicant: Ron and Jan Overton 6. Planning Case No. 526 -98 Property Involved: 8400 Coral Sea Street Consideration of Resolution No. 548 -98 Approving a Variance for Reduced Parking Ratios Applicant: Bridges Leasing Company 11, LLC 7. Planning Case No. 528 -98 Property Involved: 2359 Pinewood Circle Consideration of Resolution No. 550 -98 Approving a Conditional Use Permit For a Residential Dog Kennel Applicant: Monica & Scott Dumonceaux 8. Staff Reportsllnformation Items a. Update on Comprehensive Plan 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 10. Adjournment * ***:*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717 -4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: May 20, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 524-97 Applicant: Ron and Jan Overton Request: The applicant is requesting a 16.6 -foot variance from the established 54 -foot front setback requirement to allow construction of a foyer. Location: PIN No. Zoning/Land Use: Applicable Regulations: Section 1104.01, Subd. 3., requires a 30 foot front yard setback. Where principle buildings in existence on one side of a block are set back more than 30 feet, the minimum setback shall be the minimum setback in existence for any one lot. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. 2824 Woodale Drive 07- 23 -30 -31 -0042 R -1, Single Family Residential / single family home Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plan, date- stamped 4/23/98 (Separate Attachment) Letter from Applicant, dated 4/22/98 Letter from David J. Rudnik, dated 5/11/98 Letter from JoAnn Valley, dated 5/12/98 Encroachment Map Resolution No, 547 -98 Background: The applicant is requesting a 16.6 foot variance from the established front yard setback to build a finished entryway /foyer onto the house located at 2824 Woodale Drive. The property is located in an established, mature neighborhood consisting of older, single family homes on over -sized lots. The property is 126 feet wide and 290 feet deep and covers 0.84 acres. The foundation area of the existing home is approximately 1,000 square feet. The Overtons plan on reconfiguring the interior room layout to gain additional living space. In order to do this, an entryway /foyer will need to be added to the front of the home, within which the access to the lower level would be relocated. Due to practical difficulties, the expansion cannot be located in any other part of the house. Overton Variance Planning Case No. 524 -98 May 14, 1998 Page 2 Analysis: The section of the City Code relating to setbacks was amended in 1996 by Ordinance 590. One of the provisions of this ordinance was to establish greater than customary front setbacks for existing homes on a block that are set back further than the typical 30 to 35 feet. Because of the larger lots common in some areas of the City, many homes were built significantly further back than was required. The ordinance was drafted to protect the uniformity of the block from being disrupted by a new home built closer to the street than those already in existence. Thus, the minimum setback in an area like this was changed to become the setback of the home on the block closest to the front property line. On this block of Woodale Drive, the minimum setback then becomes 54 feet. In comparison, the Overton's house is 56 feet from the front property line. The Overtons are not proposing a new home, but rather an addition to their existing home. For the Planning Commission to grant a variance, it must examine the criteria established in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the City Code, which relate to hardships. Specifically, a variance may only be granted in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. While staff has not researched this to any great extent, the applicable setback on this short block of Woodale Drive is not typical. Only four homes are on this block. On other streets where homes are set back greater than the minimum 30 feet, there is more of a random pattern to their placement which results in a setback fairly close to the 30 -foot minimum. Were this block any longer, it could be assumed that the applicable setback would be much less. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. Because a great majority of the homes in the City are built at or close to the minimum front setback, most homeowners would not have the opportunity to construct such an addition to the front of their house. However, for many homes located 56 feet from the front property line, this type of addition would be allowable, if and only if one or more homes on the same block were situated closer to the street than the subject property. Because only four homes make up this particular block, the homeowner is deprived of this ability. Overton Variance Planning Case No. 524 -98 May 14, 1998 Page 3 c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The change in the Zoning Code which established the new provision relating to greater than typical front setbacks was adopted in November of 1996. Prior to that point, the Overtons would not have needed a variance to construct the addition they have proposed. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. The granting of this variance will not confer upon the homeowner any special privilege that would be denied to other Landowners having a home set back 56 feet from their front property line, given that there would be other homes on their block situated closer to the street than their own. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. In order to reconfigure the internal layout of the home and better use the space available, the stairs accessing the lower level would need to be moved and the only practical location where this can be done is in the addition as proposed by the homeowner. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. Granting this variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other properties in the neighborhood. The homes across the street from the Overtons are located at or near the minimum front yard setback of 30 feet. The addition proposed will add approximately 250 square feet of space to the home, which is quite small in proportion to the size of the lot. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The variance will not impair any neighboring properties' supply of light or air, it will not create any additional traffic impact nor will it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. The impact to property values in the immediate area would be positive, especially in the case of the subject property. Overton Variance Planning Case No. 524 -98 May 14, 1998 Page 4 Recommendation, Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 54798 approving a variance for Ron and Jan Overton at 2824 Woodale Drive to allow for a reduced front setback of 37.4 feet, with stipulations. Cv'n'u) j ii(A'Ao-71 James Ericson, Planning Associate N:IDATAIGRO[JPSICOMDEV1DE VCASES1524 -981 VAR- PC.RPT 41.7Y c7,,iP2 ,p i,., °RrNrr • Par me ssN'R' Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612- 717 -4020 612 - 784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Telephone (0 — P D - Fax 3t 1 Interest in Property (check appropriate box) XOwner of Property ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Agreement to Purchase O Other (explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the tiling of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. . Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning 2. LL 1e t e.) 0 A..)D 1 Z ®�- lea 2'3 •t goo Rf Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning a Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment ❑ Conditional Use Permit Variance ❑ Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review /Site Plan a Wetland Alteration Permit a Wetland Buffer Permit ❑ Floodp lain Permit ❑ Other S250 S250 /acre; rain $250 max S1500 S250 + S250 deposit* 5200 Refer to rezoning fees S350 R -1, R -2 $75; all others $250 R -1, R-2 S100 all others 5250 5100 S125/acre; min S125 max S750 R-1, R -2 S150; all others $200 R -1, R -2 $25; all others $ l00 5200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and stator consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount_ Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty, (30) days atter consideration of the application is completed Please complete the reverse side of this application. City o£Mounds View, MN Develo. ment A..lication Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant • Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification Q Abstract Description of Proposal 1. Pa e Single Family Dwelling Multi- family Dwelling Industrial Establishment a Torrens BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREB Y DECLARE THAT, TO TIE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORIMIATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant ( typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) .i Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Planning Case No. Fees Paid: . Application: aD.00 Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: N:tDATAAGROUPSICOM D El /TOR:VIS1D E VAPP. FOR FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Assigned to: 6(} -day Li 120-day limit Account e- Check Receipt 11913 It w WI • • a w r°s BRONSON ES ff ui 4 0 n 0 O 0 7457 0 rs 7447 7425 0 0, 7 • al -4 7474 748 7465 '7462 .......... 74.48 7445 7415 7385 7375 7365 0 0 n 8 Ifl 500 ro 0, m N DRf E 7340 8 7062 7072 7054 .............. 7034 7026 7006 6986 6970 6932 ril7r-i pi riffici IA NAVA r9,rfai 2940 0 !� a. CNI #I az 696i} MILAN Zoning Map Applicant: Location: Planning Case . 524 ®98 Ronald Overton 2824 Woodale Drive �4 7-t 6-5--eL0--4. M %ao cnc i Crry oJ..sv 1 �� RF U J Ca . b t 1i0 01P Wc)- ‘1\i\ wa_, C9 k IL. t4- LL ...- d /� } L.'� /Q ci4.0p1,Q.,.:„/ • L.z._ Qs_ 4itg, 0-zk 42xtSH 0. - � irk- May 11, 1998 James Ericsson Planning Associate City of Mounds View 2401 Hwy 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Re: Overton Variance Request Dear James: I am writing in support of the variance requested by the Overton's for their home on Woodale. I believe this improvement will increase the property values and appearance of the neighborhood. These are both goals which residents of Mounds View believe in and support. Sincerely, P2A26 David J. Rudnik May 12, 1998 James Ericson Planning Associate City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 551 12 Dear Mr. Ericson: Regarding the variance request by Ronald Overton to the front of his home at 2824 Woodale Drive. I do have a few concerns. How would an 18 foot by 14 foot addition be considered a foyer? As stated in the letter it will be added to the front of the house and would not line up with existing homes. Would this addition be an asset to the neighborhood? If this kind of an addition improves the neighborhood I would have no problem with it. Due to another committment I will not be able to attend the meeting on May 20. Would it be possible to keep me updated on this issue= Thank you. Sincerely, JoAnn Valley 2808 Woodale Drive 784-1968 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 547-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A REDUCTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM 54 FEET TO 37.4 FEET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FOYER/ENTRYWAY AT 2824 WOODALE DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. 524 -98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Ron and Jan Overton to allow a 37.4 -foot front setback where 54 feetis required, for the construction of a finished entryway /foyer at 2824 Woodale Drive; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential District and is legally described as: Lot 93, Knollwood Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Letter from the Applicant 5. Letter from JoAnn Valley 6. Letter from David Rudnik 7. Encroachment Map WHEREAS, the applicable front setback for this property is 54 feet, which is based upon the house that is closest to the street on this particular block of four homes; and, WHEREAS, Section 1104.01, Subdivision 3 of the City Code was amended in 1996 by Ordinance 590 to protect the uniformity and continuity of homes set back further than the required minimum 30 -foot front yard setback; and, WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of Ordinance 590, the minimum setback for this property would have been 30 feet; and, WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other owners of homes in the same district that are set back further than the required 30 feet, so long as there is a property within that same block that sits closer to the street; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the Planning Commission Resolution 547 -98 Overton Variance May 20, 1998 Page 2 applicant in that the Code amendment enacted by Ordinance 590 removed the right of the property owner to build up to the minimum setback line; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that house additions are typical improvements for single family residences; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship in that architectural considerations and practical difficulties preclude other arrangements for the addition; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that the proposed front entryway /foyer would be an asset to the subject property and positively enhance the neighborhood as a whole; and, WHEREAS, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood in that the height of the addition would be limited to the height of the home and would not be responsible for generating additional traffic or be a fire or safety hazard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Ron and Jan Overton for a 16.6 -foot reduction in the front yard setback to build a finished entryway /foyer, subject to the following stipulation: 1. Before any building permits will be issued for this expansion, the applicant shall submit architectural renderings of the north, east and west building elevations to, and be approved by, the director of community development to ensure a high degree of aesthetic quality and neighborhood compatibility. Adopted this 20th day of May, 1998 ATTEST SEAL Jerry Peterson, Chairman Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:IDATAIGROUPSIC0MDEVIDE VCASEs1524- 98154 7- 98.RES Overton Property Woodale Drive 1 Woodale Road poet Jams ani.JQ poomilou>1 odcrest Drive 1 co E. x n3 • co 43 o x al CO fi ® -0 ® tO co O c O (D CTS U 0- . U Q E E E w nr it En REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: May 20, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 526 -98 Request: Variance in Parking Ratios for Office/Warehouse Building Petitioner: Bridges Leasing Company, LLC Location: 8400 Coral Sea Street PIN Nose 05- 30- 23- 21-0003, 0004 Zoning/Land Use: I -1, Industrial District / Vacant Land Applicable Regulations: • Parking Requirements: Section 1121.13 requires that 200 parking spaces be provided for a use with 48,267 square feet of warehouse and 16,089 square feet of office. ▪ Parking Variance: Section 1125.02 establishes the process and criteria for the granting of a variance. Attachments: Background: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plan (Separate Attachment) 4. Resolution No. 548-98 On April 27, 1998, the City Council approved Resolution 5219, a resolution approving a development review for the Bridges Technology Park Phase II expansion to the existing building located at 8400 Coral Sea Street subject to the applicant obtaining a parking variance from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, at their meeting on April 15, 1998, voted unanimously to recommend approval to the City Council subject to the same stipulation. Analysis: The approved addition to the Bridges Technology Park will create a need for 200 stalls covering both the existing building and the expansion. There will be 16,089 square feet of total office space and 48,267 square feet of manufacturing and warehouse space, for a combined total area of 64,356. With the ratio of office and warehouse /manufacturing, 200 parking stalls would need to be provided. There is sufficient room on site to construct all 200 stalls, yet a small number would be Bridges Parking Variance Resolution No. 548 -98 May 15, 1998 Page 2 located in environmentally sensitive areas alongside a wetland. Given that and the assumption that the applicant does not need 200 parking stalls, the Planning Commission and City Council recommended that some of the stalls be set aside as future parking, or "proof of parking." In order to do this, however, a variance to the standard parking ratios would need to be approved. According to present parking criteria, the ratios used to determine sufficient parking are as follows: Warehouse and manufacturing: 8 spaces plus 1 space per every 500 sq. ft. of floor area* Office area: 3 spaces plus 1 space per every 175 sq. ft. of floor area* * Each fraction of 1/2 or more shall constitute another space (Section 1121.08. Subd. 1) Staff proposes that the following parking ratios be used in determining the parking requirements for the Bridges Technology Park: Office Space: 3 spaces plus 1 per 175 sq. ft. of floor area = 3 + 92 = 95 Warehouse and Manufacturing: 8 spaces plus 1 per 750 sq. ft. of floor area = 8 + 65 = 73 168 Only the parking ratio for warehouse and manufacturing is changed, the office requirement is the same. Thus, with the new ratio for warehouse and manufacturing, a minimum total of 168 stalls would need to be built. The applicant is proposing to provide 171 stalls, with the remaining 29 stalls identified on the site plan dated 5/4/98 as proof of parking. The resolution includes a condition that the applicant is obligated to supply the remaining 29 stalls in the event of a change of use which would warrant additional parking or if additional parking spaces are deemed necessary by the City. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 548 -98 approving a parking ratio variance for Bridges Leasing Company, located at 8400 Coral Sea Street, subject to stipulations. N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDEVCAS ES1526- 981PARKING. RPT • "1, '4 44 - Past�ec+�' @� Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address CITY OF IV g1004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APFLICATICI 2401 Iitghway 10, 1r1'ounds View MN 55 612 - 717 -4020 612 -784 -3462 e FAX Please Typs or Print Information - Coffiplete Both Sidra of This' asin Co. ii c Telephone 612- 890 -1500 -84_ is Cnra 7 yea St. R_E . Suite 100 Fax 612-890-0420 ai e MN 55449 Interest in Property (cheek appropriate box) Owner of Property o Contract for Deed Own,cr Lessee, Operator, Manager a Amt to Phase a O (plain) Applicants menst provfde evidence of interest hr property at the time of app w and ityou are not the owner of the property, you mast provide a letter of permission Crone the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign thin application for it to be accepted. Property Decline al Address or Cieneral Location Legal S a S N Blaine MN 55449 tk Lot- 2,, Block 1 North Star Industrial Park 2nd Adr?' 'r Pro '{PIN 10 flsqf17121 f)flfli (Roane 2c # of Acres Current Zoning 2.59 Acres --C Pra? a1 /Icdustrial Type of-Applicant/5' ix Comprehensive Plan Ater G Rezoning Q Major Subdivision C Subdivision • Plaraied Unit Development (PUD) a PLID Amendment Q Conditional Use Permit Variance a Code meal • Develop Review/Site Ply • Wetland Alteration Permit • Wetland Buffer Permit • Floodplain Permit O Ober 5250 $ /ai min 525'0 max 51500 5750 ±5250 deposit* 5200 Refs to =tang % 5'350 R -I, R-1 575; ail others 5254 R -I, R -2$100 all others 3 50 (Paid $250) 5100 SI ZSInem tale. 5125 max 5750 RA. R -2 5150: all athas 5200 R-1, R -2 525; ail others 5100 5200 "Deposits shalt he paid to cover all costs of public notices. materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, resemrott or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applimt shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Arty, porn antic deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration etc application is completed Please complete the reverse side of this appi".csboteL 05/04.98 11:36 FAX 812 784 3462 CITY OF TJ 005 City of ,Mounds View, MN Develo tricot A P� 2 Presort Use of Property Unclzveloped/Vlicanat g Single Family Dwelling a DhtplcclTwo Family Dwelling t? Multi - family Dwelling a Business/Commercial Establishment a Industrial Fsrahiisbment a Other (explain) Property Classification cX Abstract a Torrens Dt*cdPionofFroPosni o existin buildin and additional parkin . BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION. KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS Signature of Applicant Name of Applicatu (typed/primed) N .� :.41#1114 dr. THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY Signatar ofPropertyOwner Same as above Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) -- ing Co . 11 LLC Address of Owner . ___ . - ...8400. C,ora1 - _ _._ Slane," MN 55449" Phone Number of Owner - 7 8 0 -15 00 eilZCILL *Wag ■ tli s �* + maw* ratite to ga Data of Submittal Date of Acceptance Planning Case No. Application: Park Dedication Deposits: r: Otbe Total: N:TIADA»GROUPSICOM1E AFORMS O VAPPFCR FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Fees Paid 60-day Limit Acaauut# Assigner[ to: 120 -day limit Check # t# 1198 Zoning Map Planning Case 514 -98 Applicant: Bridges Technology Park (Phase 11) Locations 3400 Coral Sea Street MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 548-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE IN PARKING RATIOS FOR BRIDGES LEASING COMPANY, LLC, LOCATED AT 8400 CORAL SEA STREET; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 526 -98 WHEREAS, Larry Lindberg, representing Bridges Leasing Company, has applied for a variance of parking ratios associated with the expansion of an existing office /warehouse building at 8400 Coral Sea Street, property zoned 1 -1, Light Industrial District, legally described as follows: LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, NORTH STAR INDUSTRIAL PARK, 2ND ADDITION RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View Zoning Code establishes the parking ratios by specific use; which, as they relate to this project, are as follows: Warehouse: 8 spaces plus 1 space for every 500 square feet of warehouse floor area Office: 3 spaces plus 1 space for each 175 square feet of office floor area WHEREAS, according to the Zoning Code, the number of parking spaces that would be required using the square- footages provided by the applicant are as follows: Warehouse: (48,267 square feet) Required spaces = 105 (8 spaces plus 97) Office: (16,089 square feet) Required spaces = 95 (3 spaces plus 92) Total: (25,275 square feet) Required spaces = 200 WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed parking ratios used by other municipalities and parking guidelines as developed by the American Planning Association and recommended the following ratios: Warehouse: 1 space per 750 square feet warehouse floor area Office: 1 space per 175 square feet of office area (unchanged) WHEREAS, utilizing the adjusted parking ratios, the number of parking spaces required for this development would be 168 spaces; and, WHEREAS, according to the site plan dated 5/4/98, 171 parking stalls would be provided; and, WHEREAS, there is sufficient room on the property to provide the remaining 29 spaces as required by the Zoning Code; and, Resolution No. 548 -98 Bridges Parking Variance May 20, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this request for a variance in parking ratios: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Revised Parking Plan, dated 5/4/98 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact regarding the requirements for granting variances as set forth in Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 of the Mounds View Zoning Code: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. This site is heavily wooded, a portion of which lies in wetland. While there is ample room to provide the full amount of parking required by the Zoning Code, the applicant would prefer to retain more of the tree cover and to not intrude into environmentally sensitive area adjacent to the wetland. Research has shown that the Mounds View parking requirements are much higher in comparison to neighboring communities and communities across the country. The applicant is not responsible for the City's parking requirements. It is advantageous to retain natural areas as opposed to paving them for parking lots, if the parking provided will be adequate for the use proposed. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this title. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. The higher- than - normal parking requirements for office and warehouse square footage creates an undue burden on the applicant, and similar consideration would be given to other requests from developers who are proposing to build similar facilities. The development to the north, ZEP Manufacturing, was granted a similar parking variance in 1997. Resolution No. 548 -98 Bridges Parking Variance May 20, 1998 Page 3 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The ratios proposed for the project are as follows: one space per 750 square feet of warehouse area (73 spaces) and one space per 175 square feet of office space (95 spaces). These ratios are consistent with surveys of other jurisdictions and information from the American Planning Association, and represent a suitable adjustment. The conditions on this resolution require that all 200 spaces be shown on the site plan. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title or to other property in the same zone. The granting of this variance will not conflict with the purpose of this Title in that parking will be provided using accepted parking ratios for office and warehouse uses. Sufficient room is available to build the additional parking required by the ratios in the City Code, if it becomes evident that parking is needed in the future or if a different use locates in this facility. The 5,994 square -foot reduction of impervious surface is an environmental and aesthetic benefit. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The granting of this variance will be a benefit to neighboring properties by preserving an extensive growth of trees. These trees serve as an additional buffer between the proposed building and adjacent parcels. There are plans in the future to create nature trails and hiking paths in the open area behind the site. Retention of this wooded area will allow for a more opaque screen while retaining the natural character of the site. Traffic will not increase on the adjacent streets as a result of this variance. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the criteria for granting a variance in this case have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby approve a variance in the parking ratios applicable to the proposed addition to the Bridges Technology Park with the following stipulation: 1. No permits shall be issued for the expansion of the Bridges Technology Park until the parking plan has been revised to add the following text: "A variance in required parking ratios was approved for this property by Planning Commission Resolution No. 548 -98, adopted on May 20, 1998. The parking ratios approved for this property are as follows: Resolution No, 548 -98 Bridges Parking Variance May 20, 1998 Page 4 8 spaces plus 1 space per 750 square feet of warehouse /manufacturing space 3 spaces plus 1 space per 175 square feet of office space The property owner is obligated to build up to an additional 29 parking spaces, which would meet the parking ratios required by the Zoning Code, if deemed necessary by the City based on future parking patterns, use of the building, and evidence that parking needs cannot be satisfied on site. The property owner shall be notified in writing that additional parking must be built, and upon such notice, shall construct the additional parking within 3 months, with consideration for weather conditions." Adopted this 20th day of May, 1998. AT i'EST (SEAL) Jerry Peterson, Planning Commission Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director NADATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDE VCASES1526- 98\PARKING. RES REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: Staff Report by: Planning Case No.: Request: Petitioner: Location: PIN Nos. Zoning/Land Use: May 20, 1998 James Ericson, Planning Associate 528 -98 Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Dog Kennel Scott & Marcia Dumonceaux 2359 Pinewood Circle 05- 23 -30 -34 -0073 R -1, Single - Family Residential / Single Family Home Applicable Regulations: • Municipal Code Section 701.03, Subdivisions 1, 3, and 15, regarding the licensing of dogs and operation of kennels. • Municipal Code Section 1105.04, Subdivision 3, which requires a conditional use permit for residential dog kennels in an R -1, Single Family Residential district. Municipal Code Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3b, which identifies the criteria to be used for granting a conditional use permit. Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. 500 Foot Map 4. Petition 5. Resolution No. 550 -98 Background: The applicants, Scott and Marcia Dumonceaux of 2359 Pinewood Circle, are applying for a conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel, a Code requirement for property owners with three or four dogs. One of the licensing requirements is that the property owner shall obtain signatures of approval from more than 50 percent of the residents within 500 feet of the property proposing the kennel. The applicants were sent a reap showing those properties within 500 feet along with a corresponding list of property owners /taxpayers. Analysis: On the map the staff sent to the applicants, 56 properties were highlighted, which means that 29 of the property owners would need to sign the petition, which was also provided by staff. The applicants collected 30 signatures approving of the kennel request. All of the properties adjacent to 2359 Pinewood Circle, of which there are five, have indicated their approval of the application. Planning Commission report Dumonceaux Kennel CUP May 20, 1998 Page 2 CUP Criteria: 1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area in that dog ownership does not impose any burden to public facilities. 2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant and in that the subject property's yard is fenced in and dog ownership is a common facet of any residential neighborhood.. 3. The structure and site will does not have an appearance that will have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 4. The use is reasonably related to the existing land use in that dogs are common feature in residential neighborhoods. 5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use in that dog kennels are a conditional use within the R -1 zoning district.. 6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. 8. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 550 -98, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for a dog kennel for Scott and Marcia Dumonceaux, located at 2359 Pinewood Circle. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:IDATA\OROUPSICOMDEVIDE VCASES\528- 981KENNEL.PC I - Paecneos�'�@ Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612• -717 -4020 612484 -3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Telephone 1c'S D Fax Interest in Property (check appropriate box) - -- - — - .___ -. -_ -� Owner of Property ❑ Coatract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager _0 _ • Agreement to Purchase: ❑ Other (explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in prope at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a Ietter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted.. . Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location ePt Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning et „,:„ 415 Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning • Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review /Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit a Floodplain Permit ❑ Other S250 5250 /acre, min 52250 max S1500 $250 + $250 deposit* S200 Refer to rezoning fees S350 . R -• ;_. others $250 R- I, R-2 S t'• all others $250 SI00 S I 25 /acre; rnin S125 max $750 R-1, R -2 S 150; all others $200 R-1, R -2 S25; all others 3100 5200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices. materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days atter consideration of the application is completed Please complete the reverse side of this applications City of Mounds View, MN Develo ment A + .Iication Present Use of Property • Undeveloped/Vacant t7 Duplex/Two Family Dwelling • Business/Commercial Establishment O Other (explain) Property Classification CIT Description of Proposal • Abstract Single Family Dwelling Multi- family Dwelling Industrial Establishment Torrens • Pa .e2 BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON TIES APPLICATION 1HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO'I BES'1° OFry MY KNO DGE,. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. _.._" -"—"` „ Signature of Applicant . Name of Applicant (typed/printed) SigaatofProperty Owner .ty Phone Number of Owner Date of Submittal S _ 7 OR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Acceptance Planning Case No. Application: Park Dedication: Deposits: �.� - c�E� Fees Paid: 7 -_cp Other Total: N:li7ATA GROUPSICOMDEVWORi14STEVAPP .FOR 60--day Limit Account Check # Assigned to: 120 -day limit Receipt # I/98 • .71 )53 931 u-) r � N N 7968 794-8 7930 7925 7921 7917 7913 7909 792 7924 7920 Fr? to N N (V Pr CITY HALL Q N N ErcE ®ME MICE EINEM EOM SEEM DEEM MEE BEM 7505 7504 7641 1 . 7631 75.31 7521 8 7511 7501 153941 5395 Ia 53861 .11A-71 Z N N Zoning Map Applicant: Location: Planning Case 528 -98 Scott & Marcia Dumonceaux 2359 Pinewood Circle N d '1 "44 Pft4 ON o. NEM co al Ti 00 X .L- tJ El- c0 cc' csa ci ®� �ccw® ig MUM MUM MEM Iiriii.ii:. Pr Izn PETS N FOR DOG /CAT KENNEL I :ENSE As outlined in Chapter 701.03, Subd, 15.a.b of the Mounds View Municipal Code, applicants applying for Kennel license must present a petition to the City Council signed by over fifty percent (50 %) of all registered land owners or those occupying land within 500 feet of the property to be affected. following applicant(s) Scott Dumonceaux located at 2359 Pinewood Circle, Mounds View, has applied for a kennel license. The number of dogs located at this property will be 4 dogs: If you are in support of the kennel license please complete the following information, 5 3iq� Name (Please Print) do Lc" Signature ?.3(0-7 r g 11 W 111.11q.."1115. )/91./W:11111111111WAM 11 PrarMAIMPIM1.911, WilalEllYtinki a 11&.41'= Orden 'NM 4 lin IIIWIM 51M • WS° 0 II a ,232 c� \O■it-A-1. \ 7, G 'Qws SEA/ PETIT !`)N FOR DOG /CAT KENNEL •CENSE As outlined in Chapter 701.03, Subd. I5.a.b of the Mounds View Municipal Code, applicants applying for a Kennel license must present a petition to the City Council signed by over fifty a 500 feet of the property to be affected. Y Percent (50 /o) of all registered land owners or those occupying land within The following applicant(s) Scott Dumonceaux located at 2359 Pinewood Circle, Mounds View, has applied for a kennel license. The number of dogs located at this property will be 4 dogs. If you are in support of the kennel license please complete the following information. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 550 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A DOG KENNEL FOR SCOTT AND MARCIA DUMONCEAUX, 2359 PINEWOOD CIRCLE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 528 -98 WHEREAS, Scott and Marcia Dumonceaux have applied for a conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel at their property located at 2359 Pinewood Circle, property zoned R -1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: LOT 19 BLOCK 1, EDGEWOOD SQUARE RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, three to four dogs at a single - family residence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. 500 Foot Radius Map d. Petition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the signatures on the submitted petition are valid and meet the licensing requirement for residential dog kennels; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Owning dogs, as many as four, will not have an impact to public facilities, nor generate additional traffic or cause congestion. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. Resolution 550-98 Dumonceaux Kennel CUP May 20, 1998 Page 2 (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The dogs will be separated from the adjoining properties by a fence, which will prevent the dogs from running loose through the neighborhood. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Having dogs as pets is a common part of the suburban residential experience, an activity which does not conflict with the zoning code nor the comprehensive plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit to the City Council. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 20th day of May, 1998. ATTEST: (SEAL) Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director NADATAIGROUPSICOMDE V1DEVCASES1528A81550- 98PC.RES MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1998 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes: No Minutes for Consideration 5. Planning Case No. 529-98 Property Involved: 2085 Oakwood Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 551 -98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized (280 square feet) Accessory Building Applicant: Leonard Medrud & Arthur Jordan 6. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Discussion of the Community Background Section of the Comprehensive Plan Update 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 8. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting ********* * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUES'T'ED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717 -4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO AT'T'END. THANK YOU. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. May 6, 1998 (Regular) 2. Meeting Adjournment REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: June 3, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 529 -98 Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow for an oversized shed Petitioner: Leonard Medrud & Arthur Jordan Location: 2085 Oakwood Drive PIN No. 05 -30 -23-44 -0025 Zoning/Land Use: R -1 / Single Family Residential Applicable Regulations: 1 I06,03. Subd, lg. No accessory building other than a garage shall exceed 216 square feet except by CUP. 1106.03, Subd. lh: The combined square footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 25% of the rear yard. 1106.04, Subd.6: The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed 1,264 square feet; if the garage square footage is greater than 1,000 square feet, no other accessory building shall be allowed. Attachments: Background: Planning Application Zoning Map Area Map with Structures Site Plan Resolution 551 -98 The applicants, Leonard Medrud and Arthur Jordan, have applied for a conditional use permit to convert an existing, single -car garage to an accessory building on their property located at 2085 Oakwood Drive. The dimensions of the existing garage are 14 feet by 20 feet for an area of 280 square feet. In its place, the applicant would be constructing a new two -car garage and breezeway area attached to the house. The area of the parcel on which the house and garage are situated is approximately 12,630 square feet, or 0.29 acres. The backyard area comprises more than half of the lot at 7,650 square feet. Planning Case No. 529 -98 Medrud & Jordan CUP June 3, 1998 Page 2 Analysis: Dimensional Requirements: Required Proposed Met? Shed Setbacks (Side) 5 feet 27 feet Met (Rear) 5 feet 40 feet Met Percent of Rear Yard < 25% 3.6% Met Area of all Accessory Buildings *: s 1,264 sf 764 sf. Met *Includes proposed garage CUP requirements: Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code states that no accessory building other than a garage shall exceed 216 square feet except by conditional use permit. With a CUP, the maximum area for all accessory buildings is 1,264 square feet. Section 1125.01 gives a list of criteria that must be satisfied in order for conditional use permits to be approved. These criteria are as follows: Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2085 Oakwood Drive, low- density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area Almost every lot in this area of Mounds View is the same size as the subject property. Most of the homes in the immediate area are larger, with more building coverage. There appears to be an even split between homes with attached garages and homes with detached garages. Many of the homes have sheds in addition to their garages . 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The conversion of the existing garage will serve to increase the subject property's value without negatively impacting the values of the neighboring properties. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage is small, even for a single car garage. The applicants desire a garage big enough to park more than one vehicle inside at a time. The structure, however, is in solid repair, and could be retained as a storage shed, which the applicants currently do not have. Planning Case No, 529 -98 Medrud & Jordan CUP June 3, 1998 Page 3 This proposal satisfies the conditional use permit criteria. Also in Section 1125.01, the Planning Commission is to examine the possible adverse affects of the oversized shed, which are as follows: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The conversion of the garage to a storage shed will not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. There will be no increase in runoff from the shed above which is currently generated. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The location of the garage /shed behind the home will hide it from general public view. The structure will be in full view of the adjoining properties, although this is already the case. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Sheds and out - buildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of yard and garden equipment . Having this shed will allow for the property owners to store items currently left outside within a secure and protected structure. Staff believes that the adverse affects of this development proposal are minimal and are far out- weighed by the overall benefits. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 540 -98, recommending to the City Council approval of a conditional use permit for Leonard Medrud and Arthur Jordan, allowing a 280 square -foot oversized shed at 2085 Oakwood Drive, with stipulations. 63 TN M'd" 1�J ▪ '124.i.°21 • P7lCriC(l\'@ e Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address COM- NfUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMYtEN'T` DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55 112 612 - 717 -4020 612 - 784 -3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Leonard Medrud & Arthur Jordan 2085 Oakwood Drive Mounds View MN 55112 - Interest in Property (check appropriate box) ❑ Owner of Property ❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager .. ... ❑ Other (explain) ❑ Telephone 612- 784 -4275 Fax Contract for Deed Owner Agreement to Purchase Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application- The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Addressor General Location . • 2 0 8 5 Oakwood Dr Legal Description.. -:1 -: Lot 29 Block- 1. Pinewood :Terrace Property Identification #(PIN #) 383205 &- Mounds View, MN 55112 # of Acres Current Zoning :29 Residential Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivision ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment • Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Code Appeal ❑ Develop Review /Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Wetland Butler Permit ❑ ' Floodplain Permit ❑ Other S250 S250/acre; min 5250 max 51500 5250 x-5250 deposit* 5200 Refer to rezoning fees 5350 -1, R -2 7 all others $250 R- I , R -2 5100 all others $250 5100 5 125 /acre; min $125 max 5750 R -1, R -2 $150; all others 5200 R -1, R -2 525; all others 5100 5200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days alter consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN Develo s [Went A. +lication Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling © Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Other (explain). Property Classification ❑ Abstract x❑ Single Family Dwelling ❑ Multi - family Dwelling ❑ Industrial Establishment • Torrens Description ofProposal 7 foot addition to west- wall •f 22 x 22 foot attached •ara•e° existin• •a 280 square foot) to be used as stora•e Pane 2 anr1 BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, t HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY . .r:. %. an KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant :. Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner.. -... • Name of Property Owrier•(typed/pr°inted) Address of owxxei - . ,Leonard Medrud Arthur -L_ J „'Leonard_'1'tedrii • f�k`J?3�v!�ff� fig yE = '(i 20-8.5 .Oakwood Drive "Jordan-- Phone Number of Owner Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Planning Case No. Mounds View, MN 55112 784 -4275 -(h) 879- 5332 (w) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -/3 °)Q•. Fees Paid_ Application: Park Dedication: Deposits: Other Total: x :ID ATA\G RO UP S IC O M D E V 1FO RMSI D E V AP P. FO R 60-day Limit Account 4 Check # Assigned to: 120 -day limit Receipt # ,i73 9 L/98 C:1 2245 572 ,-161111111 uI aitte) tir). d° N N N c°‘ COLONIAL VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK H I LLVIEW nano OAKWOOD OAKWOOD PARK 5590 PF 0 z 0 (.0 -4- (t) C1/4:1 co it) C•4 (Si ('1 t4..0 0' 0 4i7:rtr aa N 0 0 0 N 0.1 N N 0' N. "et C".1 0) re7 N ( .4 PINEWOOD SCHOOL 5500 N 0' 0' 00' N 03 C*4 co 10 0 N 0 Zoning Map Applicant: Location: Planning Case 529-98 L. Medrud & A. Jordan 2085 Oakwood Drive INTERSTATE 35W LL1 0 U) fi]3 71:1 Slli;illilir ;111•1 iWiii: Mil I= ImIg11I! i. I11111i11n11 1111NIIIlH1 t...iH111111 1i1i1P iiR � MI ISM Olom OEM 1111 la 1111 1111111 =II WI MI 111111 ;Ii111i1i111' _N.. mil; l mil; o "v � illtliii ti'��Cy =� IIIYlY 111 iiil 1111111111' ' iuu MEM II ) Hillview Road Area of Inset 2085 Oakwood Drive Leonard Medrud & Arthur Jordan Existing Site Plan CUP Application for Oversized Shed N ©I ■ rim 2085 ■ ■ • Oakwood Drive 35 W Service Road MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 551 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERSIZED STORAGE SHED FOR LEONARD MEDRUD AND ARTHUR JORDAN AT 2085 OAKWOOD DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 529 -98 Whereas, Leonard Medrud and Arthur Jordan have applied for a conditional use permit to convert an existing 280 square -foot garage into a back yard storage shed on property located at 2085 Oakwood Drive, zoned R -1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: LOT 29, BLOCK 1, PINEWOOD TERRACE RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,264 square feet of garage /accessory building on one lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Area Map with Building Footprints WHEREAS, the PIanning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive PIan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2085 Oakwood Drive, low- density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area Planning Commission Resolution 551 -98 June 3, 1998 Page 2 Almost every lot in this area of Mounds View is the same size as the subject property. Most of the homes in the immediate area are larger, with more building coverage. There appears to be an even split between homes with attached garages and homes with detached garages. Many of the homes have sheds in addition to their garages . 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The conversion of the existing garage will serve to increase the subject property's value without negatively impacting the values of the neighboring properties. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage is small, even for a single car garage. The applicants desire a garage big enough to park more than one vehicle inside at a time. The structure, however, appears to be in good repair, and could be retained as a storage shed, which the applicants currently do not have. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The conversion of the garage to a storage shed will not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. There will be no increase in runoff from the shed above which is currently generated. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The location of the garage /shed behind the home will hide it from general public view. The structure will be in full view of the adjoining properties, although this is already the case. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Sheds and outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of yard and garden equipment . Having this shed will allow for the property owners to store items currently left outside within a secure and protected structure. Planning Commission Resolution 551 -98 June 3, 1998 Page 3 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The shed shall be kept in good repair and maintained into the future so as to provide a uniform and consistent building appearance with the existing house. 3. The shed shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. 4. No other sheds or accessory buildings, other than the garage currently under construction, shall be allowed on this lot. 5. There shall be no vehicle access to this shed, nor shall any vehicle be stored within said structure. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 3rd day of June, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:FbATA1GROUPSICOMDE V\DE VCASES1520- 9815 40 -98PC. RES PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 6, 1998 Mounds View City Hall 2410 Highway 10, Mound yew, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at by Chairpersdig 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Comrhtssioner -ros aµemle, Brooks, Miller, Obert, and Stevenson. -�n Members absent Commissioner Iohs t &n Also present: Community Dever.pment Director Jn' Inning Associate Ericson, Council Liaison Koopmeine d Reco der Dave 3. Citizens' Requests and > mentsian Items or' on the Agenda. The ire no citii e. nests of ailment . on items not on the agenda. Index to Minn Page Planning 9, o. 523 8 2 Q Highway 10, Consideration of Resolution 2 No 545498 Approving a e rnent Review Request for a Bowling Alley cpansian, Mermaid Inc:, (Dan Hall) sting Case No SP0 -98, Consideration of Resolution No 546-98 `rding a Zoning ,.o`'de Amendment to Allow Community Centers tt r# -3 c1. stri (Ordinance no. 617) • 4 4. Approval of Minutes Chairperson Peterson asked for discussion on the March 18, 1998 meeting minutes and the April 1, 1998 meeting minutes. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting No discussion was held. May 6, 1998 Page 2 Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brasaemle to approve the March 18, 1998 (Special) meeting minutes and the April 1, 1998 (Regular) meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes - 6 The motion carried. Chairperson Peterson directed the Commissio letter of resignation from the Mounds View Plan 5. Planning Case No 523 -98 2200 Highway 10 Applicant: Mermaid Inc., (Dan Hall) Consideration of Resolution No 546 -98 roving a.� Expansion. tZA The applicant, Mermaid It (Da As c: a Er' cs „€s presen Theo of :the Mean'' 3.0 r t*ling Alley is requesting permission to add eight new bowliriglnes the nortkstdeolthe existing facility at 2200 Highway 10. The site is verse Tp p riatel$ zoned B -3. n ;follows: equest for a Bowling alley e addition wonldersst of 7,825 square feet which would necessitate the construction of 40 additional ir gspaces. There is no additional runoff expected from the development, although the Rice Creek Watershed District will need to review the development proposal and issue a watershed rmit b?re construction can begin. i`e "are 505 parking spaces proposed by the developer. The required number, including the new addition, would be 482, thus parking requirements will be met. One problem that was discussed was the parking stalls, as shown on the proposal drawings, were dimensioned at 9'x18' instead of the required 9'x20'. The shorter 9'x18' parking stalls have been allowed only for perimeter parking where an overhang of the car into greenspace may occur. These allowances, however, have been allowed as part of a PUD. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 6, 1998 Page 3 There was a problem in that the parking areas were shown to be at the property line instead of set back by the required ten feet. The existing parking lot setback along the western property line is five feet. There is a potential problem in that vehicles parking near the property line would extend to far over the property line encroachinnto the neighboring g g Staff recommended redrawing the site plan to show 4 degree£ -,z arking around the 'c proposed addition, which would allow for the cont ation oft ve- > , rking lot setback from the property lines and the addition of as five -foo sidewal ; l e perimeter of the building and show concrete cure: d gutte along then ' � w E nA €` Staff recommended the Planning Commission appt janning Commission Resolution No 545 -98, a resolution recommending to the City �roval of the development review as requested by Mermaid Inc., with stipulations. umw Commissioner Miller questioned the f operate in the B -3 zone. d the bowling alley to Director Jopke told the Commi on the City, at an a > •eriod of time, allowed, without discussion and considg'tion ofYnging thcode, the bowling alley to operate. He added it would not be .i riate aft his time &deny the expansion because it has existed there with no prob errs. Sta e } recornr ding the Code be amended to allow a bowling alley in thgd3art sinner Stew s_,_ of 'the �p ng wo ley patrons t bowfin' Chaiipersoit maintained. ated his main concern is the parking issue. The fact that all d,fi re perimeter of the lot, would make it necessary for the ttrler to get to the bowling facility. tatedthe five -foot parking setback from the property lines should Commissioner Kilter questioned snow storage. Dan Hall, fo Mermaid Inc., told the Commission he does the snow plowing for the cility apAliere is room available on the existing site for snow storage. missioner Miller stated because of the allowed use of amusement centers in a B -3 zone it made sense to reconsider allowing a bowling alley as one of the permitted uses in a B -3 zone. Commissioner Miller questioned the outdoor lighting requirements for the building. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 6, 1998 Pa e4 Mr. Hall told the Commission his facility has adequate lighting and that all City requirements for lighting would be adhered to. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Miller to approve Resolution 547 -98 recommending *City Council approve Ordinance No 618, which allows bowling alleys as a permitted. e in kW-6 zone. Ayes -6 Nays -0 The motion carries, Motion/Second: Obert/Brasaemle to approve Resolution, 6 0 a City Council for a development review for the expansion (14 2200 Highway 10; Planning Case No. 5232 -98, with stip The motion carried. Ayes - 6 recommending apptti by the rmaid Entertainment Center, OA' 6. Planning Case No. SP062 -98 Applicant: The City of Mounds x.` Consideration of Resolution 6 -98 R Communi$C,ters Wit Q'. a = .o :54istrict(Or oning Code Amendment to Allow o. 617) gView, was present. report as follows: The Community Cents currently zoned B -3 Highway Business. At present the City's zoning code does'otpermit a community center as either a permitted use or a conditional use. e Cit��77ttorney had drafted two alternative code amendments for the Commission to sider regarding the issue. Alternative one is to make a community center a permitted Alternative two is to make community centers a conditional use and to set standard for the issuance of conditional use permits. The Attorney's draft ordinances also include other sirnilar uses such as public or semi - public recreational buildings, schools, and churches. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 6, 1998 Page 5 A code amendment, it was stated, is necessary prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for the new Mounds View Community Center which is under renovation/construction on the site of the former Bel Rae Ballroom. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission pass ResolutiQ Resolution recommending that City Council approve ordinance;` relating to zoning, the B -3 Highway Business Distri.:a;d the'pia amending Title 1114, Section 1114.02 in the Moos iew City SP062 -98, Commissioner Brasnemle stated he viewed the' 'tt: "ty center use as nsive than the uses already allowed under the B -3 zonin prefer to deal with the rezoning on a permitted -ua e of this, he said he would Commissioner Stevenson agreed with Brame Chairperson Peterson stated there permitted use. Commissioner Miller and 13' Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Mill that the City Council appro Business list t and they the Mourn $;- `. ode; 1 t 0 ; a 4, It of of the development with the The motioncarfied the permitted -use approach. 46 -98, a Resolution recommending dinance relating to zoning, B -3 Highway and amending Title 1114, Section 1114.02 in Nays - 0 Stag' Reports/Informational Items Ao Comprehensive Ilan Discussion vat zeto.`opke directed the Commission's attention to the attached summary of the ``tunity Forum meetings recently held in regard to the Comprehensive Plan Update process. He asked each Commissioner to review the report, gather any comments/ additions /corrections /recommendations and bring that information forth at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 6, 1998 Page 6 Commissioner Stevenson asked Jopke to report to the Commission on the City Council's reaction to the Community Forum Summary Report. Director Jopke told the Commission that the City Council had expressed Site concerns about the inclusion of all of the community in the process. They l;ve suggested a community survey of some sort to be done in conjunc:,on with t c nation gathered in the Community Forums. Commissioner Rrasaemle stated he agreed with tote City C He aded =floe o ri expressed by the citizens at the Community Ford were every vocal rn. Commissioner Stevenson stated he questioned said it would be just as effective to go forward wit gathered. OP.'S 2000 type of survey. He tion that has been Chairperson Peterson stated he didn't lctio involvement from the citizens. It wa the information that has been gather. Plan Update process by the end • +e City cop, to get total * he Cityiliould move forward with o finish the Comprehensive approaching quickly. ns Miller state Community Forums hav more nhone call, or tion than ,it thea bit ma eady be mere meets; as. _ the citizens had mentioned in the She stated that one more survey, one get the City any more accurate jested using Director Jopke's experience with these issues, deemed necessary, to move forward and get the job mmissioner ' ` ` , 1'��eed that the time to have the Comprehensive Plan Update rocess com let ` 'drawing near. P p � ��` g Resi g n Ton of Commissioner Johnston to Ericson told the Commission that the City Council had voted to deny the Walgreen's project. According to TOLD Development, Inc., Walgreens is still interested in developing within the City of Mounds View. So plans could again be before the Commission in the near future. :green's Project D. The Theater Project. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 6, 1998 Page 7 Director Jopke told the Commission that the City Council had passed a resolution approving the development stage plan, wetland buffer permit and another resolution relating to certain improvements on Edgewood and the signalized intersection relating to the theater project. Negotiations continue with MnDOT staff regarding th "ght- inlrighta out to the site. Three of the City Council members have indicates' tieir :.art for access "at plans to to either or H2 and /or Long Lake Road or both. The:developer��p� g p The City Attorney has indicate the City Council approve t e revised 1 r' v,houVry achieve this alternate access. returning before the Planning Commission. 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Repo No Chairperson or Planning Commissioners Rep +rts 9. Adjournment to the Agenda Meetin > There being no further business beg? e the R Chairperson Peterson adjourned t ie meetrn at 8; Respect%' F Rick Jopl,,,e Community Developmen (The Regular Meetii p to ee ng,o the Planning Commission, edict` adjou ` to the Agenda Session) w s.tted, 0 4 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION June 17, 1998 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes: May 6, 1998 5. Planning Case No. 530 -98 Property Involved: 7735 Silver Lake Road Consideration of Resolution Nos. 552 -98 and 553 -98, resolutions recommending approval to the City Council of an amendment to the Silverview Estates PUD and a development review for the revised senior residential component of the PUD. Applicant: Realife Cooperative of Mounds View, Inc. 6. Planning Case No. 527 -98 Property Involved: 3025 County Road H Consideration of Resolution No. 549 -98, a resolution recommending approval of a minor subdivision to the City Council. Applicant: Duane and Nancy Peterson 7. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Discussion of the Community Background Section of the Comprehensive Plan Update 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717 -4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** (Immediately Following Special Meeting) AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. May 20, 1998 (special meeting) b. June 3, 1998 (regular meeting) 2. Review of Special Planning Case No. SP- 063 -98 Discussion of a proposal to amend the Mounds View Municipal Code relating to accessory buildings, garages, driveways and parking surfaces. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: June 9, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson Planning Case No.: 530 -98 Request: 1. Amendment of Silverview Estates PUD 2. Development Review Petitioner: Realife Cooperative of Mounds View PIN Nos. Pending Zoning/Land Use: PUD, Planned Unit Development / Vacant Applicable Regulations: 1. Section 1119.03 of the Municipal Code states that amendments to a PUD shall be accomplished as outlined in Section 1125.01 in addition to any conditions imposed by Chapter 1120. 2. Section 1006.06 Subd 2 of the municipal Code states that all proposed commercial, industrial and residential development shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3 Applicant's Narrative 4. Silverview Estates PUD Document 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 552 -98 (PUD Amendment) 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 553-98 (Development Review) Background: On December 8, 1997, the City Council approved Resolution 5184, a resolution approving the development stage plan of the Silverview Estates PUD. Permits have been issued and work is progressing on the Holiday Stationstore at the corner of Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road. On May 7, 1998, City Staff met with the applicant, Realife Cooperative of Mounds View and representatives of Silverview Estates, Inc., to discuss the method by which the existing Silverview Estates PUD could be amended to allow for an alternative style senior housing component. Originally planned as an 82 -unit senior housing building, the current proposal reduces the number of units to 77 and changes the ownership structure to cooperative ownership instead of market rate rental. Reaiife Cooperative of Mounds View PUD Amendment & Development Review June 17, 1998 Page 2 This cooperative housing arrangement, according to the applicant's narrative, offers people 62 years and older a housing alternative that is becoming increasingly popular. The residents own and operate the development through a non -profit cooperative corporation. The cooperative approach to housing has been successful because it offers a housing alternative similar to continuing home ownership, Discussion: PUD Amendment: The PUD document for the approved Silverview Estates will need minor changes to allow for the third party developer -- Realife Cooperative of Mounds View - -to develop the senior residential component of the PUD as presented in the plans dated 5/31/98. These changes are as follows: Item 5. On Page 3 of 11, the setback for the building on Lot 4 (the senior residential building) would be reduced from 27 feet to 23 feet to account for the reconfigured building. While not stated in the PUD, this reduced setback would only apply to the building's north corner as Silver Lake Road curves to meet Highway 10. All other parts of the building meet the 30 foot setback. An additional footnote would need to be added to allow for parking within ten feet of the property line. Item 23. Beginning on Page 9 of 11, the names of the owners of record are listed. To this list shall be added Realife Cooperative of Mounds View. A notary block shall also be added for Realife Cooperative and its appropriate person of representation. The changes to the PUD will appear as an attachment to the already- approved PUD document, signed and notarized by all parties public and private having an interest in the Silverview Estates development. Development Review: This type of use, a senior residential facility, is allowed on this lot according to the adopted PUD for Silverview Estates. Because the building will be significantly different from what was originally proposed, the plans will need to be reapproved. Dimensional Requirements: Required Proposed Met? Building Height: < 48 feet 45 feet Yes Building Setbacks ® Front {Silver Lake Rd): 27 feet 23 feet No • Side {Holiday) 15 feet 24 feet Yes Parking Lot Setbacks ® Front (Silver Lake Rd): 30 feet 10 feet No Realife Cooperative of Mounds View PUD Amendment & Development Review June 17, 1998 Page 3 Building Design: The proposed building is of a three story serpentine design over a one story precast concrete garage. The siding will be prefinished lap siding with brick veneer up to the top of the first floor windows. All units will have a deck of wood construction, which will extend six feet out beyond the building. The garage area will have one -way traffic with angled parking stalls to foster safe vehicular movement. Drainage, There are two NURP ponds located on the site to capture the stormwater runoff. These ponds have received Rice Creek Watershed approval and have been reviewed by the City Engineer. Because of the changes to the building design and ground coverage, the applicant's consulting engineer has prepared revised drainage calculations and site plans and submitted them to the Rice Creek Watershed District for their review. It is possible that the Watershed District permit may have to be amended, which could be done administratively. Parking: The parking in front of the building has been rearranged so that there are 25 stalls, each 9.0 feet by 18.0 feet. Of the 25 stalls, four would be handicapped van accessible. Inside the building, there would be 78 parking stalls, one more than the number of dwelling units. All together, a total of 123. The PUD currently requires a minimum of 89 parking stalls. The outdoor parking, however, significantly encroaches into the required front setback of 30 feet. Utilities: There are no changes proposed on the site with regard to utilities. The drainage on the Silver Lake Road side of the complex will collect in the graded parking area and will be diverted through two catch basins into the NURP pond. From the NURP pond, the outlet will drain the filtered runoff into the wetland by means of a storm sewer. On the other side of the complex, the runoff will be filtered through the grass before reaching (1) the private drive, (2) the larger of the two NURP ponds behind the building, or (3) the wetland area. The amount of runoff entering directly into the wetlands should be minimal and will have been filtered by the lawn and natural area. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the revised plans and has indicated that a fire hydrant will need to be installed on the east side of Silver Lake Road. His memo is attached for reference. Landscaping: The landscape plan has been forwarded to the City forester for his review. On the whole, the landscape plan and planting schedule is acceptable, according to Forester Wriskey. The only change he would recommend is to substitute Red Splendor Crab trees for the Radiant Crabs, which are susceptible to disease in the summer months. Access: The access to the site will remain the same - -two drive aisles off of Silver Lake Road. The only change to the site plan with regard to access or circulation is that the senior building no longer has access to the internal private driveway, which eliminates possible traffic conflicts. Lighting: No lighting plan had been submitted at the time this report was written. The applicant's architect, Roger Johnson, has indicated that a lighting plan would be made available prior to the Planning Commission's meeting for review. Realife Cooperative of Mounds View PUD Amendment & Development Review June 17, 1998 Page 4 Recommendation: 1. Approve Resolution No. 552 -98, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of this PUD amendment as requested by Realife Cooperative of Mounds View, and, 2. Approve Resolution No. 553 -98, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of a development review as requested by Realife Cooperative of Mounds View, with stipulations. 4-Cuw,21„ James Ericson, Planning Asscociate N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDE VCAS ES1530.981REALIFE. PC I Received Feb -13 -97 12 :48pm -om 612 784 3462 -> REALIFE INC 05/21/98 11 :49 FAZ 812 734 3,u2 CITY OF NV e y • as.r, •• P•arraer��.� Applicant Information Name of Applicant Addr ss page 2 1 002 COi'rEWU TTY DEITELOPME -'T DEPARTMENT DE's LOP:Y 'tiT APPLICATION 2401 Filahway 10, Mounds View M 53112 612 - 717020 612 -734 -3462 - FAX P!ease Type or Print Iafarmatien - Complete Both Sides of This Form Rea1i " o e a ViewTelephone 8946511 0/0 Realife, Inc e 6 Bu agyja-lek M 55337 Inter!t in Property (check appropriate box) • Owner afProp- ty O Lam, Op aror, Monier • Other ( lein) Ccant for Dew Owner. A , e2ac :o Purchase Applicants must provide evidence afihterwt in property at the time ofapallcatlon, and &yon are not the owner of the property, You must provide a letter of permission from the osroer tying consent to the Min; of this application. The property owner must sign this applicanion for it to be accepted. P:opersy Dfmccrila ramPropvaal Adt'.°esa or C-e -rs1 Locori.cn L.i:11Dc=iption Progeny Idendfoadon 4 (7111#) of Cum.= Zonio; Type of Application c c ti 1 PTI]... Carprehmasive ?tan Ameadmezt Rezoning Major Subdivisicta Minor Subdivision Planned Unit Devei pw t(F;.D) ?LID Amendment Conditional Use P=mit Variance Code Appeal Dettelop Rev:e:viSite Plan Wetland Alteration Ft-mit WetialICL Buff Fe mit F1c dpli Permit Other S15,0 S50fa =r. ,/j�ixiJi��S�"L�y50 max S l 50 0 52.50 - 5250 *.osit° S2C0 -el- to =mixing fe S3.50 R-2 575; ail otlze 5250 R € . R -L S 100 ail others S2. s0 5100 S1?{faarh min S12.5 ;limo 5750 325' oU R -1, R -Z 5150', oil others 5200 R -1, Rat SL5; ail others $100 $200 4d ostts shall he paid to cavt all costs of public :clic= lantm::ls a; d star or consultant time :Ter:: in r e r evte :v, rme ° h or prz,;arico of Qatt~ -iivs ;sset:atcd with dais appiicanom teas applicant shall be ; cn,:ibte far ail re--sop-ante res costs u� c „c= at the inid drayic Anv ?Cruces ut :hc i osit . ^.ct spent or isle moo. bd shall 'ae :=Loceti to the appiictic within thirty (20) clays r.sid -r ion appiic con is completed_ ?!=e complete the reverse side of title application.. Received Feb -13 -97 12:48pm From 612 784 3462 - REALIFE INC. CITY OF MV 03:21/98 11:30 FAX 612 784 4462 City of Mounds View, MN DeveioDment AD ail end on Present Use of Prcpi' Und-veloped/Vann:at C Single: ataiiy Dweilini Duple iTwo Family Dwelling C Muid- family Dwelling Husincss/Comme:ciai EEatabl'sitment a Industrial E_ztablishment Other f 14 ) c Property Cl=sii motion a Abs -act a Torus Des gdcnofPr000sal Deve10 went of a 77 unit Senior Coo erative 2Y MY {OUR) SIGNATURE ON =S APPLICATION t HEY DECI..n `Fr'AT, TO THE BEST OF MY fCCi C WL.GE. 17-TB 17-TB INFORMATION PRO Al a 13 TRUE A CURATE Sic of Apniit Name ce App1ic.= (typed/printed) 8igriartn of P vperry Owner Name 01-7-7: Owner yp . Addressoz'Owner PLoce Number of Owner ■7T s tic. page 3 2009 Page ®a mm11m. aawmtstemgx ■la1sssyam:aailAmmysilbeablat :amem-naifAall **VX * * = ==ma0Y *aMtIVe MVAIEVa MaalWaaaa:ammagt a FOR OF1CZ [JSE ONLY Date of Submit; l Date ot?roepeziab Planning Case No. S3 CJ - CI 5()�inv I_iolit 120 -day limit Assigned .o; Paic App Li on: f7a1 OO ?ark Ded„cadcn: Deposits: Other Tonal: Y'ZAT,R1GRCUPS.CCMCVA OISISIDEVAPP.: pR A o -.. /1� L19! 8005 B 7990 �79 a 79601 79501 7955 aa 7985 8004 7975 7970 7965 7960 7958 otw 7934 7932 7933 7950 70 cV ) 7900 7981 I 7990 7979 7980 7959 7970 7954 7949 7901 w1LLV EW r3 n 7940 �� 7930 ® 7981 7990 7969 7980 7965 7959 7966 7945 7935 7900 7861 7835 Pe)I 03 7886 7876 7870 W z 78911 m ua =, N (0 1 7880 7886 7885 7877 7863 7781 7851 7854 7842 7830 7820 nE e cl 7901 cv '01 .. ............. . ROi 78951 M N 7867 7851 7841 0 781 7800 -767 t729 7815 7 7809 7801 7 7787 7 7761 7 7755 7 7745 7 7715 i 7685 766.3 7653 7635 7692, 7690 Ex 768 768gi 5 7601 7575 756.5 lit 70 SILVER VIEW PARK CNca n/ N Nk-N cm 01 N 0 i 1D ..+ ; cv op rj r "in B -2 r Zoning Map Planning Case 530 -98 Applicant: Realife Cooperative of Mounds View Location: 7735 Silver Lake Road iv 4 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 552 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE SILVERVIEW ESTATES PUD FOR REALIFE COOPERATIVE OF MOUNDS VIEW, 7735 SILVER LAKE ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. 530 -98 WHEREAS, Realife Cooperative of Mounds View has requested an amendment to the Silverview Estates PUD to allow for the construction of a 77 -unit cooperative living housing development, replacing a previously approved development for property located at 7735 Silver Lake Road and zoned PUD, legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 1, Silverview Estates, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Chapter 1119 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that any amendment to a PUD be accomplished according to the guidelines established in and imposed by Chapter 1125 of the Municipal Code pertaining to amendments and conditional uses; and, WHEREAS, the applicant specifically seeks to amend Item 5 of the approved Silverview Estates PUD document which addresses the dimensional requirements of the PLTD, by reducing the building setback to 23 feet and the parking lot setback to 10 feet; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application, dated 5/29/98 2. Zoning and Location Map 3. Applicant's Narrative, dated 5/29/98 4. Silverview Estates PUD, approved 12/8/97 by Resolution 5184 5. Site Plans, date - stamped 5/29/98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plans dated 5/29/98 are consistent with and improve upon the Silverview Estates PUD and PUD document, approved 12/8/98. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of a PUD Amendment to the Silverview Estates PUD for the Realife Cooperative of Mounds View. Planning Commission Resolution 552-98 Realife Cooperative of Mounds View PUD Amendment June 17, 1998 Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 17th day of June, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:IDATA \GROUPS\COMDE VVDEVCASES1530- 981552- 98PC.RES MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 553 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR REALIFE COOPERATIVE OF MOUNDS VIEW, 7735 SILVER LAKE ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO, 530 -98 WHEREAS, Realife Cooperative of Mounds View has requested a development review for a 77 -unit cooperative living housing development, replacing a previously approved site plan for property located at 7735 Silver Lake Road and zoned PUD, legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 1, Silverview Estates, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application, dated 5/29/98 2. Zoning and Location Map 3. Applicant's Narrative, dated 5/29/98 4. Silverview Estates PUD, approved 12/8/97 by Resolution 5184 5. Site Plans, date - stamped 5/29/98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plans dated 5/29/98 are consistent with the Silverview Estates PUD and PUD document, approved 12/8/98 and recommended for revision by the Planning Commission 6/17/98. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of a development review for the Realife Cooperative of Mounds View, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan prior to the City Council meeting to show Red Splendor Crab trees in place of the Radiant Crabs as requested by the City Forester. 2. The applicant shall submit to staff, prior to Council review, the Lighting plan for the site, which is to include the height of the light standards, fixture type, bulb wattage and footcandle readings that extend to the centerline of Silver Lake Road. Planning Commission Resolution 553-98 Realife Cooperative of Mounds View Development Review June 17, 1998 Page 2 EE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 17th day of June, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMT EV1DEVCASE51530- 981552- 98PC.RES REALIFE COOPERATIVE OF MOUNDS VIEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA 29 May 1998 APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT OF SILVERVIEW ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/SITE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF SENIOR HOUSING COOPERATIVE Owner/Developer Realife Cooperative of Mounds View, Inc. 10895 Silver Lake Road Mounds View, Minnesota (612) 894 -6511 Fax: (612) 894 -6520 Contact: David Hanson, President Architects Johnson, Sheldon & Sorenson Architects, Inc. 10249 Yellow Circle Drive Minnetonka, MN 55343 Telephone: (612) 935 -6337 Fax: (612) 935-0878 Contact: Roger Johnson Attorneys Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612) 835 -3800 Fax: (612) 896 -3333 Contact: Bill Griffith Civil Engineer Charles Plowe Engineering 9180 Lexington Avenue Northeast Circle Pines, MN 55014 Telephone: (612) 785 -1043 Fax: (612) 786 -6007 Contact: Chuck Plowe 2. L FACTORS CONSIDERED IN FORMULATION OF REALIFE COOPERATIVE OF MOUNDS VIEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The information contained in this development narrative, together with the development plans for Realife Cooperative of Mounds View Inc. ( "Realife "), have been prepared taking into consideration the following: 1. The location and boundaries of the site located within the Silverview Estates PUD generally southeast of the intersection of Trunk Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road on property legally described in the accompanying development applications (the "Property"); 2. Existing zoning and land uses surrounding the Property; 3. Existing characteristics of the Property; 4. The Mounds View Comprehensive Plan (District 1); 5. The effect of the development on the regional and local roadway network; Applicant's Interest Realife Cooperative of Mounds View, Inc. ( "Realife ") is the developer pursuant to a purchase agreement with the fee owners. II. THE PROPERTY Property Location and Boundaries The Silverview Estates PUD Plan is a "wedge- shaped" layout generally bounded by Highway 10, Silver Lake Road and the right of way for the St. Paul Waterworks (immediately north of County Road I). III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REALIFE COOPERATIVE OF MOUNDS VIEW Senior Housings Cooperative The proposed senior housing cooperative (the "Project ") offers people 62 years and older a housing alternative that is becoming increasingly more popular, that is, cooperative living. Cooperative housing is the ownership and operation of a housing development by those who live in it. It is a not - for- profit cooperative corporation with specially designed "Articles of Incorporation" and By- Laws." 3. Financing of the housing cooperative is provided by members' equity (through their share purchases) along with a HUD insured 40 -year blanket mortgage or conventional mortgage for the project. Cooperative members are in effect their own landlords, thereby enabling the Cooperative to be built and operated at an affordable cost. The mortgage program requires each project to conform to constructions and operational standards established by HUD. A cooperative is a unique form of home ownership. The corporation holds title to the dwelling units and directly assumes the mortgage, tax and other obligations necessary to finance and operate the development. This relieves the individual members of any direct liability for those items. Members support the cooperative through their occupancy agreements. This eliminates the necessity for each member to be an individual mortgagee under the mortgage contract. The cooperative approach to housing has been successful largely because it provides a housing alternative very much like continuing home ownership. In cooperative ownership, the pride of its members results in a strong interest in maintaining the property and participating in shared management. The first senior cooperative housing project in Minnesota was "7500 York" in Edina. Occupancy of "7500 York" took place in October of 1978. Many of the original residents still reside at "7500 York." Cooperative housing residents normally occupy their apartments longer than renters do. They become better acquainted with their neighbors and learn to work together for the general good of the people and the building. Proposed Development Plan Realife Cooperative of Mounds View will consist of 77 cooperative living units in one three - story building (the Building). Underground parking is provided in 78 stalls. This is more than sufficient for the daily parking needs of all the residents since not all residents will own cars. In addition, surface parking is provided in 25 stalls in the center of the development site. Total parking on site exceeds the PUD requirement; at 103 stalls, the average parking is 1.34 stalls per unit. In addition, the cooperative will operate a mini -bus which will provide two round trips per day to and from local services, such as medical offices, shopping and public facilities. Finally, residents will have access to public transit, such as Metro Mobility, and local buses. Access and Traffic Characteristics Vehicular access to and from the development will be from Silver Lake Road. Two driveways will provided circulation in and out of the site, and into the underground parking area. The parking and circulation design incorporates an interior loop drive to accommodate emergency vehicle access to the Property. The Developer will work with the City's Fire Marshal and Engineer to develop the final parking design and access to Silver Lake Road. 4. Trip Generation Trip generation rates for senior housing are very low. Daily trips will be approximately .5 trips per day per unit. In addition, bus, service and taxi trips will add approximately 15 trips per day. Therefore, total average daily trips for the development will range from 55 to 75 per day. Trip generation for this land use is significantly less than any other commercial or residential development. In addition, senior housing has different peak hour characteristics than office and commercial uses. The greatest concentration of trips do not occur in the PM Peak hour. Trip generation is within the existing capacity of adjacent roadways. No substantial increase in traffic is projected for local and regional roadways as a result of approval of Realife Cooperative of Mounds View. IV. STORMWATER, UTILITY, AND LANDSCAPING PLANS Stormwater Drainage The majority of the site drainage is by catch basins and storm sewer which is directed to a proposed water quality pond located at as feature in the front setback of the development, as well as the water quality pond in the rear of the development. The location and size of water quality pond will be consistent with the PUD Plan and will be coordinated with adjacent development. Utili Connection Sanitary sewer will be provided to this site with a connection to the sanitary sewer now under construction from Trunk Highway 10. Water service to this site will also be provided with a connection to the water line now under construction from Trunk Highway 10. Stormwater ponding and storm sewer will be as shown in the approved PUD plan. Landscaping All landscape planting requirements are as shown on the Landscape Plan. All requirements of the City's Ordinance will be met, consistent with the PUD plan. V. BUILDING DESIGN The proposed building is of a three story serpentine design over a one story precast concrete garage. The design allows for numerous types and shapes of units and allows the structure to be viewed as a smaller scale product than actual dimension. 5. The garage area itself is designed as a one way diagonal parking structure to ease the amount of turning and backing and to create a much safer traffic environment. The garage has three (3) hour fire rated construction and has a fire suppression system for user safety. The three story structure above has, in addition to the units, common areas such as a great room with serving kitchen, storage cubicles, craft and exercise areas, lounges, and several guest rooms. The building is served by two elevators, fire stairwells and is divided into several compartments with area separation walls. The building is sprinkled and has heat and smoke detectors for user safety. From a comfort standpoint, the building utilizes a high energy efficient envelope including 2x6 walls, insulated glass at windows and sliding glass doors and an R =44 roof insulation. The exterior of the building has face brick on the lowest level, and uses a heavy duty vinyl siding on areas above the first story windows. The decks have roofs over them and a heavy duty shingle will be utilized. VI. CONSISTENCY OF REALIFE COOPERATIVE OF MOUNDS VIEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THE MOUNDS VIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND SILVERVIEW ESTATES PUD PLAN Comprehensive Plan The Silverview Estates property is located in the City Center district established by the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan (District I), and is located at the northern gateway to the City's commercial core. The City has previously approved: (1) the concept plan for the PUD designating the location of allowed uses, and (2) the development stage plan containing the detailed components of the PUD as set out in plans, dated, December I, 1997. Zoning The City's zoning map, dated May 1996, classifies the Property in the Limited Business District (B -2). Since publication of the zoning map, the City has taken action to reclassify the Property "Planned Unit Development." It is understood that the uses designated by the PUD take precedence over the B -2 classification shown on the zoning map. 6. Allowed Uses The PUD concept plan includes the following uses: Parcel 1 Gas station/convenience 6,500 sq. ft. max market Car wash 3,000 sq. ft. max RV Dump Station Parcel 2 Office building 25,000 sq. ft. max Parcel 3 Office building 5,000 sq. ft. max Parcel 4 Senior housing 115,800 sq. ft. max PUD Site Data Gas station/convenience market/car wash Office building Office building Senior housing Total (Total Site Area = 13.0 ac) Impervious Pervious 1.33 ac 0.30 ac 1.43 ac 0.69 ac 0.28 ac 0.83 ac 1.31 ac 6.86 ac* 4.22 ac 8.68 ac (32.7 %) (67.3 %) *This total includes the wetland and St. Paul Waterworks ROW Dimensional Requirements Setbacks - Buildings Highway 10 & Silver Lake Road 30 feee Private drive 15 feet Interior lot lines 0 feet(2) Wetland 100 feet(3) St. Paul Waterworks 30 feet Setbacks - Parking Areas Highway 10 10 feet(6) Silver Lake Road Parcel 1 20 feet Parcel 4 27 feet Private drive 10 feet(4) Interior lot Ines 0 feet° Wetland 100 feet(3) St. Paul Waterworks 30 feet Building Heights(4) 7. Gas station/Convenience store 28 feet max Car wash 28 feet max Senior housing 3 stories; 48 feet max Office 32 feet max Parking Requirements(') Gas station 4 spaces +2 space per service bay Car wash 5 spaces in stacking lane Convenience store 4 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of GFA of retail sales area/0 spaces for storage space Senior housing 1 space /unit +.15 spaces per unit with a minimum of 1 space covered per unit Office 1 space per 250 sq. ft. of GFA Deviations from the PUD Plan The building has been designed to conform to the senior rental building approved in the PUD Plan with two minor deviations: 1. The building structure will strictly meet the approved setback; however, the provision of decks will exceed the setback by six feet. 2. The northwest and southwest comers of the building will be four feet closer to Silver Lake Road than the building footprint approved in the PUD Plan. VII. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL HOUSING POLICIES The Metropolitan Council Regional Blueprint describes efforts to "expand life -cycle housing opportunities" as a critical policy direction for the region. (See, Blueprint, 1994 "Executive Summary. ") Metropolitan Council actions will give priority to regional infrastructure investments or expenditure of public dollars to communities that have implemented plans to provide life -cycle housing opportunities. (See, Blueprint, page 56.) Well before the Blueprint was adopted, the Metropolitan Council Housing Development Guide forecasted the current demand for what is described as "life- cycle" housing. Traditionally, housing has been constructed in two types: (1) apartments for young people just starting out and (2) single - family homes for couples with children. Today, there is grater variation in housing types responding to life -cycle changes. The "empty nesters" category includes married couples whose children have grown. The empty nester often desires to move to a townhome in part, to alleviate home maintenance and other responsibilities. This cycle may also include older persons living alone, who cannot continue home maintenance. It is the responsibility of metropolitan - area cities to plan for a variety of housing types to meet the life -cycle needs of its residents (Metropolitan Council Housing Development Guide, p. 17). 8. In 1985, the Metropolitan Council looked at the effect of changing demographics in the Twin City area housing market. The population of the area is expected to grow by almost five percent between 1990 and the year 2000 and by over 16 percent between 1980 and 2000. The major demographic changes are due to the aging of the baby boomers, who will be between the ages of 20 and 54. Large increases in the middle -age and empty - nester categories are projected; and corresponding large decreases in the adult categories between the ages of 20 and 34 are also projected. An average of 7,000 new housing units a year are projected between the years 1990 and 2000. The impact of projected demographic trends on housing includes a large decline in the typical renter and first-time home buyer age groups, and continued increases in the older housing age group. The empty - nester category is projected to grow by 32.3 percent between 1990 and the year 2000. The growth will result in increasing demand for housing alternatives such as the senior housing cooperative. (Sources: "Looking Ahead at Housing" The Effect of Changing Demographics on the Twin Cities Area Housing Market, "A Report of the Metropolitan Council, September, 1988; "Housing Markets in 2000: Prototypes of the Region's Communities," A Re ort of the Metro olitan Council, 1989.) The Project is designed to respond to the demand for life -cycle housing created by the changing demographic trends cited by the Metropolitan Council and City of Mounds View. Empty nesters and people of retirement age will find the development a convenient and desirable alternative to single - family home living. Amenities and services provided in conjunction with the development are designed to attract and retain this market niche; including the provision of common maintenance of buildings and grounds. In addition, the basic, single -level floor plan is convenient and accessible for residents with mobility constraints. Increasing demand for this housing product has been demonstrated in Mounds View and surrounding communities. In fact, the majority of prospective buyers will come from existing residents within five miles of the site. VIII. SUMMARY OF RATIONALE SUPPORTING APPROVAL OF PUD PLAN AMENDMENT The following is a summary of the rationale in support of the Project: 1. The Project provides affordable senior housing in an area of the City that is best suited for this type of development. 2. The Project meets a clear demand for housing alternatives for an aging population. 3. The Project is in a location that is close to services required by seniors who will be eligible to purchase ownership in the housing cooperative. 4. The Project will provide open space in conformance with the City's plans for the PUD, 9. 5. The Project will be developed with minimal changes to the approved PUD Plan for senior housing. 6. The Project does not propose to fill wetland or floodplain areas. 7. The Project can be developed within the capacity of existing roadways and utilities. 8. Regional and local policies support the development of a range of housing options. 9. The Project will be developed in a campus like setting coordinating access, landscaping, open space and other elements with the adjoining commercial, office, and retail development now in the planning or development stages within the PUD. In summary, the plans for the Project have been designed to complement nearby commercial and retail uses. There is no fill or grading proposed for wetland areas. Multi family senior housing is proposed in an area that is best suited for such development. The development directly satisfies the goals and objectives of the City with regard to protection of wetlands and surrounding open space. 10. IX. REALIFE COOPERATIVE OF MOUNDS VIEW SITE DATA Dwelling Units 77 Site Areas Square Feet Acres Gross Site Area 355,885.00 8.17 Building Site Coverage 35,514.00 0.82 Floor area: 106,542.00 Floor Area Ratio 0.30 Density 9.5 Units /acre Parking Underground Above Ground Total Average 0400738.01 78 25 103 1.34 stalls /unit 11. A m cat a) CCD �_ m % I C C 7.7, C" 8 to 8 ® C O O C ' as d .- -a = O ®m a m G 0 O CD C.1, A. _ C >.() AO,2 m ® .1:, ).a m m y 8 7 m C Oar (8 O y m 6- _ m .T.-- m E m® A m 0.1 co y U U 09 m 0 ffi= m C 1 4? ® C m y CJ m .. O n O p .d. '0 m m O? ® m (.0 y it a. co m_C C .A �� lm (0��•�03 QS 6) m C m m _C c t O ® 0 77 ,,-r....0000 - C.- O ' C CO o m CL 03 C CO • O 0 m 03 0f =CD >a.= m m m m m® U :an:: m 0 m « 0 m o o CU E�� m v3 ii: m C� al (8 (n = C ..�E C m 7:4 es min C ® a, Cr) 0 C? in Cr „,03.....000,a.. 0 C C o 2 .- Ca O (1) cc' d 7. m m. i O N a) 6 O'RI 2 m o �.0 =:v It Z L- O" m (9 N ® m ® 2@ Cb '� O C �� w , O„ = 0 -a® C 43 co � � Z ar 0 0 ®� 60B m wc3Z c w ® � (® A O 7 W a� N ea C m ,- ro C a C� 0 m L fn .® • m (6 m eli ® O Cr) 1.F.., CJ t C3 G ® O = C. = m a) m (8 m Z ® �3 0 2 .c u3m m® ..0 o °' 0= s) CV U= C .0 u C C:1 fV .w C V7 Z Z n ® z 2 —3 C) 0 ®Q Am L-, —a cal CO a CLI 0 w 0 E 8 to E v v Zp �� CD L) 00CD o ON 000CI C) C C 4 N r° rW a O 0 0 x 0 x al E E ,n E 0 03 'c C] 0 CSI N 07 r ) Q) L- it 0 0 n 0 0 0 e C9 -J c to �I CV � 0 - OD U W • ,oez a W ° 0 CC1 ® a) ,c m ft c 0 c pr a9 -0� -a- •r =i1 - . � ea al al al'c =a_ "3 en ® Q) �ul 0 01 U) 52 a 1g � 0 S 0 Sw ci30Uco® 6! 0 Ca c3 cc 0 A 0 C 03 U - i 0 0 I; erl a) 0 c c • — Q9 , .0 0 tJ MI CI) In 01 .1e 0 U In U CLi M m U e- CU CU I 0 en O 0 N O L. 0 6S} e° N .� 0. 'idC O N Vl N 4) C� U U U R 0= 0 t® C7 0 (0 cQ E 0 0007/0-0 ®� "a c a) ® •c 0 o 1� ®E'er c c x ea E m E .E us cr .. o o ® 0 0 0 0 $ ' 0 ®C a O 07 ' to 0 o o o C M 0 car B s 0 rt 00 cD m e0 n ® in ca a) LO N i � N 10 03 N- 1;. o 6: "asQloE c E g a 4 2 i o a = c f) 45 u)� o - O 0 0 0 �'7 cn (a- .0 a) 0 '- c Cl 1:7 t C7. - c -- N I' •a '� ca no CNN E� 0 T -- a= �a ter- ®� •� ', cn `� a� �3"mcaa.� � c cm®EE•w -E2c-E c cam Ao to _a E cm ..= c 0 al 0 au r ni _ 0 cs —cc-- 0 ea co co•� -E , c E a� E wQ T 'E° al U to o to c ®= t� E *E , N U c w o m cam c� c tu ® ?�� = c 0 -§• �._ e c 0-- o c 3> 3 c 0 n ca m 2 a o�,� 0 as.�as� 3cc•� m o E aUi ® c m c) ui a cam U 0 ; ® s- co �� v NI g t0.5 5 ° 0 CA 042 C71 'P(®c Z z coo 0 ® W 0 W CQ A ua 0 A4 O. o. E— z cel <® CV LT > '1 W ® *E'17) � Q @ a7 ca W E co 0� as al 'a ma a. amo � .c cs to car 0 aht O �- m 4 c ® �� ate$ to 2 �°� �` 'F N 03 m e c 0 N T` E ;pi. a` .� - W m O �, ci m .6 E% 5 a Fio 0. .o ol� . t co °" 5_ C 3 m O m~ ar m off. m U m ®"' m Z. 0 �_ ZZ L. m O h as Q 4] U z- 3 m a m a C ar ar �° as c a� we Q of 5 N O � mc 4 m cool m> a m ® U `0 m m O 0 to Qa q-8 •y O 4; m m 5 to 4 a o 'q al as W y m +r m m m Ufl U a ' C a] as ® '.0' 03 u3 0 cz MI � c 6. M � CU h., ®gy mx _q) ti � X4- �"m iew and Construction Process 0 -0.,.., a) o - g� CD C - o - ca 0) ®Uc ®arc -C-• 441 :3 01:8' ro� ��,m xcc c +n u us fit us 5 Q ar3 N e am �] 0--us .® ro G co .9 coz•o® a,E'uus o vi��ai' �uoC,�n C U 0 x .5 U = 0.v mw c °�,� a� �� m= a) m 2 o® his v was 2 E -� ®a a E`�* a� L � w> ��c�� E �, , a- W o 6 a9 0 0 a9 U of cm Q) 0® C.. al A o ga O � � .0 OW-Om � c �� c �� ® = O a E s ® = c 4 -0 l'•": E3J `o ° Qa 0.m 0 0 oy a, › v � -(T3 a C X0.0 0 22 v� al C 0 �� o° a `°•�$ E o �`°- m �o U v �.° �r vyc� �Uj �� as E c c a•5c E`c .0 (6,� v �°, �cc '°�ou.c 0 �0 ar =as Lao € ®ear as t�°-, �®'U) Z®2t" a ''"'�`o� 3 �� CD i ®. �'v, �� o �2 c asp oc �.c c3 m.,5,4„„.0 -........-0.0E ®u,�r c a� 9 ®.0 � 0 o u-a- as a_•°°a UI ®� � �� o� ® > = ,2 c ccv osu - v ® o c�� o us � � w� � — 0 .0 o. 0 L.L. as = - E- o Q2C ®� 0 v � E , o C:7‘ L,1 d con ®z Z Z L) C7 ®Q < ®,J U crj ®WU 0 E W 0 Tti <0uI0 °) a) c� 0 a) 0 .. 0.(C retFa� E E ° • > 0 m •C O 0 t C oua ® � �0 vim. 1 c .. 4f4 c tII 41[10, �-0 O as �E cow- csa)c�a ea 0 0 �C O. a- oO� 0 0 — c 18g c a) 0 .0 Via• ®�C� � c E asc Wc•— Eo C i U trI 0 0 — 0 o co MI CD 0) o O C C ca ❑ _C 0 2— 0 6 LO -' � w .0 -0 cUm1- -0�,0) to EL c 0 �. L. N 0-0 0 ,ai N C -O C al Q- m co o O 2 1 0 >, U O O m O a, C O as .c cn � , ®• -0 •� E to to °4 -c E ` = a, S- o rEl t 3 °vim ,.c ra �, c�`c�� o '5 55 LT O C 0 '6 .000= 0 O 0- O C o co 0 W O 4.- O a U 2 °Q C �" O U en .c o "I? O La 2 a. 0 IL C c m'6 c co a) .O 0. c0 a' C ®2 �� a) � o 0 c U® ca E U C® CD 0.. In O ® C .. O as 0 C m a3 ms -a . as a� ? U c ,; U 6„,.. a) a CJ c B C09i '� �, aa) �, � ®cy � 41 Ca c� arc -�.�- �a�ca® ®c°�.�a��a"'i - m 0) 0 0 0 O m 0 >, � a co a to 0 am � 2 07/ _ O. -- Lal U - a,~Ca* •_MCAcc2�c5 0 0 v C c ° .ccn =�'ca al = 0aa) ®a c.2 a, >, ° ®® y,0 tsa~ O c2��'� ® Qa0 as fl.c ® -w �� ( = U as a) as U a) as 5. 0, as c 11 aa WC .� ® I0 C a) y as a) -A C.rn O.0 0 0 to = Q. c0 E 0 E •.c t0 co a3 to N 0 � 0 8 XI c 0 "". •0 C V) 'O � a) • — 0 .0 cam• U VI 0 to as .9 ua U ,-CD ufl-u al 0. = in 0 E al a 0 c cf) �73 al ea 0)r of ci 2 u-0 `O o O 2 U Q) 0 r C as >. 2, C Q E C W 2 cc m (� .0 C (® al O _c a) `0 -F2 O- C ® O Q ?° C a) C ca •U 49 > — cO �.� O 0a) C O C C O a) 7 a) ' C U at a) ° ® A Q _` o c -c a C 1 0 0 .9 E m N a] : as el a) Ia• TO 4 III B " Ia�- > O C0 � >O �. a) ` � - O � Q r° � at. a C ® C m C aa)0 Q >"• C a. i= 0 aJ • ® U A c ? o ffi n • ` ® as , @) ul ® c a, ® O.0 t 'C O lz � w Cm C as O Ca C •— O E coo 046 �a ��c�E to •a U 5 U C as Ca — O C p O Ca 4. 0 0 Ca �73a)atg�aa• acv c� C � U D 0 0 as W {n°45, C C 3 �� U I�� C C as C oc�� =a' ®c,�' c�5 a cvc t cm a)i ® O , a, �as ®• a E L. al 0 -0 (a o v —a -) a a.�} ®U 0. Q ua O fa C to T1 .� 0 O tom'§ 111 Q >b 0. C O. d..c 15 0 va C � _ °O D co E E O � C = a) t ;. .0 a) ' 2 0) c 0 XI m °E> -0Zj"c m w03�c C — L N 'O C t� a a) C 0 ea o O c �, i0 u) 43 C o .al C 0.0' B ( 0 (0 O ® O sn C ® O® C ' w — O � U O c y. C3 � a. ®•C ® 2 O t® - - va as (7 w ti Is v Ia to �„ O C ® a •c a) U ® ° ® E C m o 0 0 C 0 O aJ O 'II as aJ t 0 c U II U Ca D Co r!1 5 E U C E O a @ a C � � ®- �•° •= to o v® ® O = n- u ®La_ 8 0E ® - .E C Iun a C 4)`° 2 d 0 0 c Cj - • an o O c W C '0 U .0 O 0 ®C'C c. C -C C '2 d ®� _0 O as .0 C -0 v,U2c °cta z �--°� a ca '� ®n3 °m ®O c� — 04 C a 0 C .� 2 2 « `a -a 0 , U Ca O IT a) a 0 0 o O U L ,- cum. ai m ® c° v w .C� 0 0. =� 2. -Z ( a 0. 0.0 0 0 CJ's 00 C1 ry occ ®Z� Zz o Bai a 0 ®WCa ❑ W ;- W al w r\ a3 ® C Cg C O -3 - L E �^ C L a7 Ty 2 C 0 Ca °" °, E ® a3 to CJ a3 a 03 < a a) C 0 - ` a) 0 Ol ti a] C C a) a3 Cfl ® w a3 Q N- a3 Cr O, .. ®" •c w a) W 3 U W 0 c CO r c M C c U j y a. ®C c .� w .; C° U _c •- Ll -C 3 a) Q3 0 si o) C E a) °C O .0 aa) ®� �° O C 130) L L L •E Tei w. mco a30Ec� C �aaz °� °�EaCa3 al EIDU ®;0I a °aI� "0.tC ® L. � E � �,� y m� Ti �03 7 ®�� a3 ® m as o .E C -0 ■0-03 w ® ® O a1 ® O m O C CD 0 2 a, t1 us a .N . C g 0,Y 9 2.t 0 C CO 0 o °° ® 0 2 c al 0-0 as H° o I .0 0 Cr m -0 230 •� a, ®E a w w �� v3 ®Lam 0 TY L a3 its 3 D_. -- w .d -c a 3 ®L ... c.® CO m t a3 .- m O.® Id 0.. ®a a! t) C° af y O,. C Q as 0_E o C6 inas0CI053C�Ca E7,tt) O 1._ = a3 Fa C N w C �- a) O 0 L t- 0. Y CO aa3 =a) =a.® '� E �3 aa°3�a0 o ex ...17 ca U L. E 0 a) 0 ®` E C en 0 •O E 0� ,C 0-E a U® OS ®° a3 0 a -,� -� .c -C fp � Ca ��io�EC,n al ci'= .C' (00,U C v, cfl to a3 to C Oj C ■03 01 a3 -® ,� a) O to a3 t� •�, 0 w C� faaa m ca c. L� ca ®� ®tea ..c ..c as � O a) w ®p a) o '- c a3 G U ,O ° is I fa a. C® = 3 ci- •� E C a c c a) a) w 0 C C w U L C a Iliflhfi a' �LU aa) Ti )= a) c 1 E tea° a3 w a3° rii. cali to o. E1 .0E. .E g2 Q ci .c'E 0 Bl a) I.a3 C 0 0 as O. -0�°'- Q3 < C3 a a t_ -a a3 en 0 c) 3 ...C. co ® .0 N aT O Tri C a - w a) as 0 L C —a) - °C a t. C a, (C a ,T, O O • M Qa °-0 73 .8 a C. 0, In C C - a3 0 O a.— 0a a3LC 3 C� C C3 0 tp- C L a) C 'as u, E Q3 � � g g E a •� C 03 0 - 0 0 ® a3 C 03 E E U C Q3 L E° y a) O a a a— 0-C 4) a U t9 a3 .5 O a) `® ® U = .- 0) a 3 >, 8 C.- E L a3 a a a9 0 -. C ° NJ .- L �i C .0 .9_ 0. .6 01 0 * = .0 .Fa E tzo C w C a C O ° ca to a. 4� t- 03 C L a C 0 a) 8° a) i- � '® O a3 i° F to a) U .E �. V — C W C° U E W r. ® mg wal E C U t®1 u, .0 C O C ta CO 0,3 ( 03 12 a ® ® L ®U E 2m 0'2C °a �0 � - ` 3 ,P, i° � a w C � a .E ° a. 9 •C o u, --0 C L E2 +° ri) 0 Z 3 a 0 O U 01 Q) wzi C - L a. m a LI E E ca. �.0 Q t E & ea 0 i 0.� 01 m= 00— U-3 O l � � ..L.-- � �' 1) U � U W w w C C a3 ` O C. C f63 C _ �' a3 a3 (n a. 2 6- •M 2 O O j E O u3 C O a) U Q3 Q3 j " O 03 _0 C ° U O X ®� ® E E w a3 t]. ® a) it 8 'C c .0 m. a Gi , as _C ca cdLttr =`71� :Esc a� E C (a • .�. aJ E m ® C �. E O 0 w gal 0 u) 4 to 2 w N L C L ,33 O-c C a a) it' a 0 �.p,L 02 L t7 1 is . C D .0 a it �. a 0. Ca�III asXCO as -a di 0. ' �� 0-0 �� 0 c '0 C as '0 �.a c a3 U .r- g ; ;5 NT _cm 05 09 . . . ,f— a� eaLL a aJ 0) ID to .0 C a) L - U co E L us - 3.c� C Cad 0 ,� aJ ® U u} a ID I C ®® 03 _0 - 0 E a3 ° C U C 0 C. a a •- " a) f U C = �•0O o L w ® C C U Q L - as S0 C w L ID a) a 0) L o c• � 0-D 0) I C C �'E V9 C U �- a3 Q0)• —°°L C C T3 O �• a) C ® .c L 'C - a O 0,i u, O [t1 C. 0 C a C n CT C't Cr' C cs oz Z szi C70p p E 0 W W CCI 0 ci4 a CO Ta c C a a• qzr ro CD 0 c9a c 6 m c a) •c ® us o 5 a a) in cc- ID .14 w ®� 0 Zt `� U O c G G ®' c ES _o' it,- U a) P. °° aa)i Si - c c . o j 0D'U) nv �as E0-�8a, o�.ca9 as a,ay�� .. ® �7iz1 IT = H U c a) a) o ca ca 0 C ® CD a) L-0 - o X tail o� aa�,�,��t� omc _cera��- oo� 't C7 O CD c) ®.= va O �. c3 ct7 en m ® ® vj c� at U Cl. Ca CU o� ,2'-' ° �' qua c? �c � -,-2. .0 �''� a $ -. -C en C.) a) ° 4 a9 cB a) 2 c a) E • ®ma c 0•x,3 0 �a C 0 CL� ��a o M c� - a,> ®�� v,��o® m �a,� c ..••• 1:7 ,coa)o �rn ZZICJ ° o �� ca o_ o tea) a) al N ��u� o Cam. • 13 ®° o y o rn o) n 3 cD Ti CO o E H° oc a) o as as c o c° . �� E �� ®y ®� 0.1. >� BEM 5 ate) V ° a) L e� > •� 0 al p `� U3 ® u a9 . • E� 71 c[1! o a ® o e ua a� °°'" Ts 0 ", ® a a) ivy - o� (12 71 GO as m a) �� e�,•3co °Ea) a -] VI CM ..c as a as o 0 0 •— �- �- o o to 2 E ,� ca ,n au Ts is c i� ` a f o o, 0 c2� .5� �]U]�vE,E�.rn ��a�@ � �ea� 'm�� - ��ino� ) 00 �Ec ®a) � =a o E__� 0a ayiaE Q al ce) e� a) ELI : : 73. o as �� as c C : . • 9, m E3 ®ay moo`" a> 0 ; 0)r® �, v • m _ c3 ®o - � o- �cam as a�o 0 a E ° ca' i . ' i 1_ ° � Jc'' : ®v; �xvn'c �� cV� m c , o0 Ln Wq)43`a3 o 0a) Z oa �oom ® � c ®o E . 0 c. c - o o P3) T.1 a) o ® m c� ®uE c-c c.. -o c •v•2 E13 f 3 o) u o®-'c v a ® , e o� ® �° as o n �Ua) a 7a• a Lta ca � ° c E n0)0) r Q .0 � � � ° L. ,�.° • o � e c E oUcro ae ca iao A -C c. 0 -ca ozi tx1' �c o ° � d a) ®acv ® o. - • .i ® �, cn o °o _� nd v 7 4 c �, E a U ® — c Ter 2. a) if; 0 •C 2 ' a c "5 11:1 �� ° ..c3 -6' a m�� °a ctn-0o o o-c 4.) o c. m v to �o a ® o � �°c � N ® en- 0 0.3 �-4 tdi ��oQ°� .c2,EL° s as co �o)�i o� o••- ) �� o E ay �' `"'� cc .0 .= c ° a 3r�, as Qo � E o ca ; oa >. ro.r �E r— oE�E � �,� oo �o ®c°am ® o c LU� °• W ®o = `a � � y � �. ®n E �o CI c :—.-.4: E.,' `� ° s o as a — > -c . ca cu a) n II n w r 0 a) {,. -r7 v, � c � c • o o �., 66 • ." a ®ay 0 0 en s ® B o a � � co El_ h°Ca�o, To- .2 6. E Cl3a �t— C. o.ia0 c/3 < 1_ c PM - E..... ta 77) til �` �� u ›N al ��° a) 0-0 E O_ ijj 6 a_ 6. m c t0 a c o o me a acm0)o t8 °= m m ® -- a) in a)� m� ° c �o o m° 0 0� c m> 3 E c E u' 0 m c ®-c ��.c•� o �� m • 0 D a 0.12 c c co 0 tti ea y c ��E �> 02 �� ; 0- a te• c �, m z- �= �_�c ° 09 m u Of m UJ 0 to E ..)e0-= cci ° °' c .ca..g. c mom° �� a " �,°° �, °-u �� - ,_>„0_c a) O c a) f h c m v c m O °s ia o o C U a) ; Q 2 - c r® 0) r fC .❑- = a) OF c o.6 ; c 0 -�`c - a 0 E a - � e ° a� 2,s � _ � °�m 03Q 0 o )-Q 7) 0m 0I 0 m = mom > ° '0c ID w�� U f E 0 0) = �0- -Ia c c m m m m e ®Ua 00 oY ° 0 E� a) a cn .c -o m� .c c W m � as 0 6. a -A ll� "a °�• -,1- o ) mom --0 c = c ay 4, c �y m m c c m�10 ea c m a) c� ; 1 "0u,...0000.-q. 0 -- m a0EE— Icaca�to ° a) =0cc a)ca �;Eozi-0 ,.,0 °c.c0® • ®0 0) cc2 c� c c ° °—m "c �' w, co 0) m a o cz °X o m o� m o �aw� m �= m =a -M00. 0 a) a°01.cm- ay: cA tv ®.0 ID o o cW 0 a ®‹ .0 - a F a, i-� 3 - � - a o--Q •°.®• .- 0- 0C) ea c .0 eD 0 a ea a) -= c U ma) •c m c um 'c c ea as • _ °y L c o = c O = 2%1- 0 > c sus ca i to c c O 03 .0 •m m o M = C v m 0 -a a c- ctsa. co 0 .c m o c m c'° 0 a) 0 m O E >,02) mmw 2 O C O ® m .,C 'vy " 0 0 O .0 o � m ra 0 Q U E a) - c m as 0 0 01 m .c cue) CE = c E C .® 0 ca CTS°® C w m 6 0 a (1) tZ U U .� � o � 15-- o 0) ID c CJ .® a0 m 0 m m 0) A a) C7! m :5 c Oe -� E ® °c m 5°— m e cn To- xi 0 °c N m � i_0 �� -0 co a `c 0) — w g) -c m ® m m o) .3 O X m a) -5 a- .0 _6_ O 0-0 a- c I fl i H t 6 a) 0) to -0 0 c .�, a) a c e a) Q 0 c c c O c y Qy • [a m - ` E N `m Oo m (SR- o c1 o 8 a 5-g m )1 .co .c ,d .c m- 6 .c c o toy �cE °�a' c Q u a 10 a) -9 m - 1 m0 In 0 p = tg c ID = � -0 ° tC�J 0 — ® 10 cam c - 0 o r c c, -6 M m X Oc (" .c 0 = O c to M -0 of 0 c c cm= a) Q O c m. tc° uy c m$ C p m m = to ® E0 a r � O c m 10m co) w 'm °8 c -R m m m c m 4n _c 1 O al 0 3 10 (-9'Gg E m Am -g(71,�13E 0am.c1? ID •c w 0 U Q m f® O a (0 0) 0 =u) co O co) E E 70 �) Orp m v L. m t� �•c .cc c 0 C® .- 0 O _0) c 0 m a 0 — m c -a 7 c 0 .,w r. o � -c I o E 0) m U -0 L.0 CI- c c c =0E > ij) c c > E m ID O 0) 0) u 0 o= c E op >• - Ecg m m E 0) W � >4 cz- wcfl iE C:2 CeNN F/a tom) €-m w Gel W ia] F■ Lta a N c Ti cts -0 0 al c AWE -. =a.0 c = a C 0 m N t!1 a as ca 0 ,c as - ® 0 !— NCO ° °c ®E 0. 0 3+ E c a7 a) N •®' 0 CC) a) m ro >, c to m .0 - �] m a� m 0 a)-3 E°0� m aT 03 •o al C .c O® O a) 0 03 m u 0 0 r t a -CI = `h � .c � d) < —9 CD .E � o C E ED C m Cl. ® a0 � ® a 0 0> '2-'' O t CU aS c c m 0. a) y v C 0 0 c ` � �s' N '§ , E 0 E 0 0 >-C a) 0 � N c ) ® U .0 � A ® c 13 ® ID c c�c.._GL 7c ® . o 0 Ill C a Co C520cg2•ga E�to 0. � . °o2 2 ,� c =E to � 0)2 •L. 3® 0. E 2C 3-E c3 2� : 1 E a o _5� a R.�� . a Ca 1- �, E C m w'= 2 > c = 0 a.0 C n� E rac E �� 9 o c c O ? O m 0_ a) 5N c N C.� -.! .- 0 N ®c. 3MI 2 t„. • E0.E ?, E co 0 3 °" 0 0) ,U ra , c o... 73 mr e Q) A 0 ® ' a. o. m 0m� °mcm �®1 3.�E�l� o j cog O c a� c 0) 0 — 0 > m -0 e > m a) :F. 0 T7 N 9.. ®a a C 4-77. o� `4) C =C >� c c ®-I 0 0 . t. C C �0J�y CI) a- 0 CI N :0 a ._ o m c ca m a) 0) m t� `01.0 0„17„ Ca vs � 0 13 a � eac c °a ,0) C 0 r c-6 0°6 c (0 fn o Ti .� -0 7 > >m `- o -> -.5 as c as cc,)— f:13)� 0 0) N > a) y U9 0 0 N - > m (1) ra ®'7 o- ®EU "� m c o o r�'c— m � 0 -L a) 0 c 0 0' 0 0 .Naar _•°_c o c o_ 0 c am~ a3 0 0 vi �E -N_.@ o Ica m 010 c 3��.0 - 0 (0 = 0 o°-° >. = o ai 73 t.:5 as a ®m .a= �. w m m c E gy. fa N -c 0 -0 0 0 (0 142 m m c i� (0 �1- _a m ® o ° o E c. �� .. = o m a) L) m �`�h --E.� w1c!cc" o- ®,$°o as �@ �.- p �p . • N N 0) ii " a�� "_m � p s c u) in ®,5 gal 1-- ®°'°0.0" ca g° m i�L'as - '5 a) as 3 0 N 0 C t` O N a 47 c) C m �m 0- 0 c (000�,� 0 oe c o � O ,„±t,=" s E c= O U a) 5 c O. 0 O N 03 a, E�0 En -z E co= 2 E c-0 c- ®.c 0�2 0 0 E 7 0°m 2' E43 ai .c .c — r, •- 0 N 0 as .3 = `Es a) L- c � l comma o°��Ncos loy0 -C m m a) 0- mrnID ®.' m 4. Z ,LN 46 C '� Z C/3 `T? O m m O "� m m 11 e) fil ca m ` �N,pp.,m m . fl0 •O ,Z t M -C a • m V = p O ' Zo-8 0 co la z CL (e) [. � 0 0 0, o ct � S. O y 5 la O m 8• " c� o 07 ® 0' .� � 4 O Q G !e. cp 2 O m? . m QQi m. � • ® m � O 0. vi3 z� o® m m oU • am w�:cc▪ m� Qm L!J 0 Q' as am" m U . • m m h. CO ® m_ „.nE 06'm® te „o 43 0 ” O v m °® ° O G O O >,..-0'5 lry O , 73 O co _ N aJ t7 ® m an d Ozo Ill �� 'E m .oZ m o a. m m C �� 0 cz � 0,- � < o a m m m �ic m'o ra 7:1.---,..'0.02m-0 8. dE Z ap m ®'a �na�L 5.000) - c�8 `� Ca v3 12 m 61s = .2�t ® L 0 0 u u .0Z 0oS Q za > G 0 a E ® E. Sg � � .0 ® • UO� �J ccn� m "E C +- Cl” C ® O C m O O al a) 3 C U O 03 ® to o a) O. N vi ., C v 0 �` a) -m 0 C C G 0" a' t; a) ea ®O o as a) ® to o 0 O. O® i16 ,- on G as 5: O — 03 • y v, m o j Om t� C tn M G M f j G C 4 O O C I aO ® M Q O + E W= a= 0, W O = G O a) M L° 4" C C U III U G ) a) ® a _ G . w c C•- G a) O-C O • O O O v) 0 G Qt ® E C o U E C a) X C Q C ca 5 a) 6- • m . co -- G O� ) C C a) d$ (� la -C O a) C W r O C alC M n C ® al z 0 C m C C1 a- O 0® E 0 •C'c ut t° ur a) t� y r (n .- 0 - a) '- 0 O a) -0 G > as = •§- .0 G r — G C ve a) a) .0 0) cV Q) ® a 44<== .�' -o .0 a 0 VIII C44`1=0-0 t® �• t°® Cr% 00 CA kfl kr1 co" ®Z� o -1 ELI CI Z al" a 5 !z] CJ 0 ID 2 cis c (-3 LE• - W -Cr co c a) c� 77 to I o o a� a) En RS w STATE OF MINNESOTA o ffi- t -0.° a) ag c4 0 0 c d) - ® 0 6 0 0 0 c 0 0 m ` 113 c0 X O TIC"- U 0 .12 0 0 W .0 '8 E o o 0) r va ,g.f.P:0572 2 to 0 0 c FI a E w CL 0 77 173uy .c c 0 •0 N • E '2' „, - co 0 c.1 y? ffi Z a) -c ca 2. c ® c �m�- U o 0 b �.oco o to - to Ec ®� ICr/ -0 ® o 0. c >. :: 0 ID E c o�E a) 0 al 0 CO mr 40 c cn r e CO ® as -0 _a m c T 3 W. • ccco J �� 0 0 , �® .1...2 -0. w c a) - >, co C z ° t� 7• A ZZ • w O 0® faJ 0 � W � w 0 0 0 LEI co CO 1:- co w w STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY CL 0 z RECORDED AT: NADATAIGROUPSICOMDEVADEVCASES1502-971502-97.PUD REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: June 17, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No. 527 -98 Request: Minor Subdivision (Lot Split) Applicant: Duane & Nancy Peterson Address: 3025 County Road H PIN #: 07 -30 -23-33 -0031 Zoning/Land Use: R -1, Single Family Residential Lot Size: 22,503 sf (.52 acres) Applicable Regulations: • Surveyor's Certificate: Section 1202.01, Subd. 3b requires that the applicant provide a certificate of survey prepared by a Minnesota registered land surveyor. • Minimum Lot Size and Widths: Section 1104.02, Subd. 2b, as amended by Ordinance 590, sets the minimum interior lot size at 11,000 square feet. The minimum width for interior lots is 75 feet. • Provision of Easements: Section 1203.04 requires that drainage and utility easements be provided in the event of property subdivisions. • Park Dedication Fee: Section 1204.02 requires that a park dedication fee be paid in an amount equivalent to five percent (5 %) of the land value of the property to be subdivided. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Certificate of Survey (Separate Attachment) Resolution No. 549 -98 Background: The applicants, Duane & Nancy Peterson, are requesting approval of a minor subdivision to create two lots from their property located at 3025 County Road H. The City's subdivision regulations allow for approval of a surveyor's certificate in these situations. A copy of the surveyor's certificate showing the proposed lot split is attached. This property currently has 100 feet of frontage onPleasant View Drive and 225 feet along County Road H. There is a home on the eastern portion of the lot. The applicant proposes to split off the west 125 feet of the lot, to create a 12,500 sf corner lot. The remaining lot would only be 10,000 sf, which is 1,000 sf less than the minimum lot size. The applicant has arranged to purchase 10 feet of property from the Peterson Minor Subdivision 3025 County Road H Planning Case No. 527 -98 June 17, 1998 Page 2 neighbor to the east, Mr. Steve Borden, residing at 3009 County Road H. With the additional Id feet, the remaining property, at 11,000 sf, would meet the minimum requirements. This will be accomplished by means of a simple deeded land transfer between the two property owners. Issues: The proposed legal descriptions and certificate of survey have been reviewed by the City's Engineering Technician, who finds them in compliance with City standards in the proper form for recording. Staff has sent a copy of the certificate of survey to the City Attorney for his comments and to arrange for the drafting of an easement document to convey the drainage and utility easements shown on the survey. The only issue that exists with regard to this request is the park dedication requirement as stated in Section 1204.02 of the Municipal Code. It states that for all subdivisions of less than one acre, a five percent (5 %) park dedication fee is required to be paid before the subdivision can be approved. According to the Ramsey County assessor's records, this property is valued at $29,700. Five percent of that would amount to $ 1,485. Subdivision 3 of this Section, however, allows for the exclusion of the land under the existing home remaining after the subdivision. With this exclusion, the dedication requirement would be reduced to $825. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 549 -98, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of this minor subdivision subject to stipulations. James Ericson, Planning Associate N; IDATAIGROUPSICONIDEV IDEVCASES1527- 981PETERSON.PC 1 .r , ',r. • P.:5/ megti�Y� Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612- 717 -4020 612 - 7843462 - FAX Please Type or Print information - Complete Both Sides of This Form DUANE R . PETERSON AND NANCY PETERSOItelephone 2.1195 MADISON STREET N.E. ISANTI,- MINNESOTA 55440 Interest in Property (check appropriate box) Owner of Property • Lessee, Operator, Manager O Other (explain) Fax NONE • Contract for Deed Owner O Agreement to Purchase Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The ry a owner P P rty r must sign this application for it to be accepted. " - - - -. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning 3025 COUNTY ROAD .H - The West two hundred twenty—five y —five (Wa225) feet RK,Ramsey Type of Application • Comprehensive Plan Amendment O Rezoning • Major Subdivision $ Minor Subdivision a Planned Unit Development (PUD) a PUD Amendment a Conditional Use Permit 0 Variance. a Code Appeal a Develop Review /Site Plan a Wetland Alteration Permit a Wetland $u.tfer Permit a Floodplain Permit 0 Other S250 5250 /acre; min S250 max 31500 S250 + S250 deposit* S200 Refer to rezoning fees S350 ; R -1, R -2 S75; all others S250 R -1, R -2 575; all others S250 5100 S125/acre; min S125 rnax S 7 50 R -1, R -2 3150; all others S200 R -1, R-2 $25; all others S100 - S200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days alter consideration of the application is completed: Please complete the reverse side of this application. Co City of Mounds View, MN Develo meat A iication Present Use of Property O Undeveloped/Vacant r' • Single Family Dwelling • Duplex/Two Family Dwelling • Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ • Multi - family Dwelling Other (explain) Industrial Establishment Property Classii cation 0 Abstract Description of Proposal Torrens to two lots. One with BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner MIA NE CY PETERSON ETERSON - (7) Al 444_A4AP FOR OFFICE TISE ONLY Date of Submittal y _Cl Date of Acceptance s Assigned to: Planning Case No. `% — 9 b0iay Limit 120 -dav limit Fees Paid: Application: do Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: N:I DATA1GROUPS1COMDEVtFOR.titStDEv, .PP.FOR Account g 11)7 Caeck # Receipt 4 L9$ 01 0 01 N N 0) N 0) 0) hi 0 01 N 7234 7226 7200 7188 7172 7150 01 w DR N E W B R G H T O N Zoning Map Planning Case 527 -98 Applicant: Duane & Nancy Peterson Location: 3025 County Road H 1y Q MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 552 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR DUANE AND NANCY PETERSON, 3025 COUNTY ROAD H; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 527 -98 WHEREAS, Duane and Nancy Peterson have requested approval for a minor subdivision dividing their property located at 3025 County Road H, property zoned R -1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: The West 225.0 Feet of Lot 75, Knollwood Park, Ramsey County WHEREAS, the applicants have entered into an agreement with the neighboring property owner to the east to purchase an additional 10.0 feet of land so as to make subdivided Parcel B a conforming lot with regard to the minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the two lots created by this minor subdivision, Parcel A (the northern half) and Parcel B (the southern half with the existing home) would be legally described as follows: Parcel A: The West 125.0 Feet of Lot 75, Knollwood Park, Ramsey County Parcel B: The East 110 Feet of the West 235.0 Feet of Lot 75, Knollwood Park, Ramsey County WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate and Plat of Survey for the above described property. WHEREAS, all subdivisions of land are subject to park dedication requirements as indicated in Section 1204.04 of the Municipal Code NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision request made by Duane and Nancy Peterson, of 3025 County Road H, contingent upon the following: 1. Prior to City Council action on this request, the Certificate of Survey shall be revised to show the following: 3025 County Road H Minor Subdivision Resolution No. 55298 June 17, 1998 Page 2 a. The distance between the existing garage on to -be- created- Parcel B from the proposed side and existing rear property line. Text shall be added to the certificate which states; "A separate drainage and utility easement document has been recorded with Ramey County. 2. The applicant shall make payment of a park dedication fee in an amount specified by the City Council according to the requirements in Section 1204.02. 3. The applicant shall record the City Council resolution of approval, the Certificate of Survey and the drainage and utility easement document with Ramsey County within sixty (60) days of final adoption, and present proof of such recording to the City of Mounds View, or this approval shall be null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 17th day of June, 1998 ATTEST: (SEAL) Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N:IDATAIGROUPS \COMDEVIDE VCAS ES15 27- 9 815 5 2 -9 8PC. RES 001 0'01 qu 8 tql /p,cj ,� 1 NnO) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW .RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting May 20, 1998 Mounds City Hail 2410 Highway 10, dun' w, MN 55112 1. Call To Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson 2. Ron Cali Members pr .cent• Chairperson Peterson, Corner issione (arrived at 7:10), and Stevenson. Al=t; Commissioners Brooks (exc Also present; Community Devel. Recorder Dave Tex. 3. Citizen? Requests an MViiller, Obert on tems stsorc Index to N11 Planning 1 o, No 54. Approving Ronkd Jan Overton. arming Associate Ericson, and on the Agenda on items not on the agenda Woodale Drive, Consideration of Resolution or a Reduced Front Yard Setback, .ing Case No. 526® :, 8400 Coral Sea Street, Consideration of Resolution 48 -98 Appro'g Variance for Reduced Parking Ratios, Pany LLC PI e No. 528 ®98, 2359 Pinewood Circle, Consideration of Resolution No. 550-98 Approving a Conditional Use Permit For a Residential Dog Kennel, Marcia & Scott Dumonceaux Page 4 5 Mounds View Planning Commission May 20, 1998 S ecial NIeetin Page 2 4. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 1998 Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Stevenson to approve the April 15, 1998 Planning Commission ( Special) meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried. Ayes - 4 5e Planning Case No 524 -98 2824 Woodale Drive Applicant: Ron and Jan Overton Consideration of Resolution No. 547 -98 Approvin Setback. The applicant, Jan Overtonwas Associate Ericson gave The . r ilicants were /3, exist exist o iySe minim gsin shall ce to the 54 foot front yard setback that oodale Drive. The 54 foot setback was 1, Subd. , "requires a 30 foot front yard setback. Where 4r' , u one side of a block are set back more than 30 feet, the setback in existence for any one lot. rro erty a �.. wide and 290 feet deep and covers 0.84 acres. The footprint of existing horrr-;_ 3.':4s 4 6* ately 1,000 square feet. The Overtons are planning on econfiguring thehoi*ts existing floor plan, including moving the existing stairway leading to the b. ent. In order to do this, an entryway /foyer will need to be added to the front of th me, within which the access to the lower level would be relocated. d been received from the neighbors. One letter from David Rudnick in e addition and the second letter from .roAnn Valley questioning the definition of Staff is recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 547 -98 approving a variance for Ron and Jan Overton at 2824 Woodale Drive to allow for a reduced front setback of 37.4 feet, subject to stipulations. Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting May 20, 1998 Page 3 Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions of staff. IttetiffiKiiiifatirBrasaemle asked for the current side yard setbacks. Associate Ericson stated they were approximately 30 feet, altho them during his field visit of the site. Mr. Allen, the project architect, gave his presen The house currently has stucco and vinyl siding. house and blended into the existing finishes. All windows will be new. There will be a new two -c match the existing. An attached garage was no capping an existing well that is used for irrigati not measured Chairperson Peterson returned the $o Commissioner Brasaemle asked Woodale. Associate Ericson told th Ail Commission ition will : sue the fs will be new. e garage, also with finishes to use it would have meant • ssion wo "prate Resol as _� -�s- M. ti red en cussion. houses on the other side of was 30 feet. removing from the fifth Whereas starting after the ded in 1996 by Ordinance 590 to ", and change the word would clarify the meaning and intent of the agreed with the changes. to approve Resolution 547 -98 as amended approving a equirement from 54 feet to 37.4 feet for construction of a foyer rive, Planning Case No. 524-98, with q • 'b ins ns stated in the Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Mounds View Planning Commission S ecial Meetin • 6. Planning Case No. 526 -98 8400 Coral Sea Street Applicant: Bridges Leasing Company II, LLC Consideration of Resolution No. 548 -98 Approving a Variance for Redu, The applicant, Bridges Leasing Company 11, LLC Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: Bridges Technology Park Phase II recently had adding to the existing building at 8400 Coral S parking was looked at. It was determined that their site plans was not sufficient to meet th enough space if proof of parking was u applicant could construct the parkin 5219, which was approved the Ci Two hundred stalls are req construct 171 with the r room for more stalls but wetland into the r thto would b Staff i for ev May 20, 1998 Paae 4 f a development review of this review the cant had shown on ver, there was ance request so the plan and in Resolution par require essitate the si ent. The applicant is proposing to s and proof of parking. There is ed are located along side of the cif and Planning Commission thought that and additional buffer to the wetland and from ce space parking ratio, three- spaces plus one space area, but raise the requirements for the warehouse and aces plus one space for every 750 square feet of floor space. requirements for parking at this facility at 168 spaces. Staffs recomm variance for Brit. stipulations, , w g approval of Resolution 548 -98, es Leasing Company, located at 840 ated in the Planning Report dated Ma approves a parkin Sea Street, subject to 1998. on Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions. Commissioner Brasaemle asked the applicant if there had been any changes since the site plan had been approved on April 27, 1998. Grady Kinghorn, representing Bridges Leasing Company II, LLC, told the Commission the only change had been the addition of more handicap parking stalls as had been Mounds View Planning Commission May 20, 1998 S ecial Meetin Pale 5 requested by the Planning Commission. He said the stipulation, as stated in the Planning Report, would not be a problem for the developer. Nfotion/Second: Peterson/Brasaenile to approve Planning Commission Resolutio Resolution approving a variance in parking rations for Bridges Leasing_ i pan. at 8400 Coral Sea Street; Mounds View Planning Case No 5 6 -98, wi$ the Planning Report dated May 20, 1998. Ayes ®5 The motion carried. 70 Planning Case No. 528 -98 2359 Pinewood Circle Applicant: Monica & Scott Dumonceaux Consideration of resolution No. 550-98 Dog Kennel. -98, a C, Located ons as stated in ermit For a Residential wording to City Code, home owners having three or and a conditional use permit. One of the el license is that the applicant take a petition to all err property. A majority of the surrounding property petition in order for the license and conditional use permit to e submitted the petition and it has been checked against City records to There seems to have been only one neighbor in opposition to the nditional use permit. erson Peterson asked staff if a check had b for complaints that had been made against the applic + ogs AOC Associate Ericson stated he had not checked but the action is one of the steps that staff will need to complete as a part of the licensing procedure. de with the police: department Mounds View Planning Commission S ecial Meetin May 20, 1998 Page 6 Staff is recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 550 -98, a Resolution recommending the City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Dog Kennel for Scott and Marcia Dumonceaux, 2359 Pinewood circle; Mounds View Planning Case No. 528 -98. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission fa Marcia Dumonceaux told the Commission that dogs are in the house. During the day when ther in the yard, and the rest of the dogs stay in the h property has a fenced in back yard. There has been one police report made because opposition has not been willing to reach a com situation livable for everybody. Motion/Second; Stevenson/Miler to appro Resolution recommending the City Coun dog kennel for Scott and Monica Dum Case No. 528 -98. The moti Ayes - ogs are h nobody` eon un ti ebody co night the ak g. The one neighbor in a to make the ution 550 -98, a se Permit to allow for a. cle; Mounds View Planning 8. Director Jopke = 3; ` of the Commissioners new Comprehensive Plan Update Work Books and told Commission that the Comprehensive Plan Update process would be resumed at the,ext regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Ate ms`s ny Properties Update or Jopke told the Commission that Anthony Properties, the City of Mounds View, and MnDOT had reached a compromise on the signalized intersection and access for the new theater project Edgewood will be realigned and intersect with Highway 10 with a signal. Edgewood will continue across Highway 10 (access into the theater/ business area), into and through the parking lot of the theater and ending at County Road H2. This scenario had made it necessary for the Anthony Properties plan to be revised. The Theater Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting May 20, 1995 Pa'e 7 seating has been reduce to accommodate the reduction of approximately 90 parking stalls. A petition was filed for a referendum in regards to the access road. Signatures on the petition are currently be reviewed to ensure their validity. Associate Ericson told the Commission the City Atto ey has the issue does not meet the criteria for a valid petitiA =$ a hat hold that these typ actions, non-legislative actio referendum; in addi ion to some problem with th r0�sc 9. Chairperson and Piano ng Commissioners inion that states ase law would e There were no reports from the Chairperson or 10. Adjournment There being no further business befo Chairperson Peterson adjourned Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopk Community Planning Commission Memo TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: James Ericson, Planning Associate RE: Special Planning Case No. SP-063-98 Proposed Municipal Code Amendment DATE: June 17, 1998 To address a variety of issues that confront Community Development regarding garages, driveways, parking areas and to make administration of the Code more effective for both staffand residents, we have put together a package of interrelated amendments for the Planning Commission's review. Explanation of Proposed Changes by Section: 607.06: OUTSIDE PARKING AND STORAGE: Vehicles would be required to be parked upon an improved surface which would be defined as asphalt, concrete, brick or Class 2 gravel, with a reference to other sections of the Code pertaining to parking and parking areas. 902.05: DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION: This differentiates between a driveway and a parking surface. Driveways shall be of a permanent surface -- gravel would not be allowed. Parking off of the drive or alongside can be gravel - -Class 2 gravel -- subject to specifications in Section 1121.09. This also adds construction guidelines for brick drives, which is not currently addressed in the Code. 1005.06: EXTERIOR AND STRUCTURAL STANDARDS: This clause says that driveways surfaces shall be permanent and that except for R -1 and R -2 properties, driveways and parking areas shall be maintained year round and kept free from snow and other unsafe conditions. Page 1 1106.03: R -1 ACCESSORY USES: e An item has been added that requires driveways to be improved with a permanent surface, which does not include gravel. An item is added that requires that the area of the garage to not exceed the area (foundation) of the house, except by CUP. The maximum size for a garage without a CUP has been increased to 952 square feet, up from 864. 1106.04: R-1 CONDITIONAL USES: The maximum area for all accessory buildings on a lot with a CUP is increased to 1,400 square feet. The requirement that no other accessory building is allowed if the garage exceeds 1,000 square feet has been deleted. 1108.03: R -3 ACCESSORY USES: Garages have been added as a permitted accessory use in an R-3 District, the number of which not to exceed the number of dwelling units contained within the principal building. Each garage limited to 250 square feet. 1121.09: STALL, AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN: All driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced with a permanent improved surface, except for R- 1 and R-2 districts, whereby 300 sf of gravel parking area can be constructed in accordance with specifications added in the Code at Section 902.05. Asphalt is considered a permanent surface. The minimum size of a parking stall has been reduced from 9 x 20 to 9 x 18. As a trade- off, the reference to compact car stalls has been deleted. 1121.14: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PARKING REDUCTION: The title of this subdivision has been changed to read "Proof of Parking." No longer would proof of parking require a CUP, so long as the conditions listed are met. Review and approval by the director of community development unless Council action is required by virtue of a development review. Page 2 Proposed Amendments (The following represents excerpts of City Code with the proposed additions and deletions underlined and italicized and struck out and italicized, respectively.) 607.06: OUTSIDE PARKING AND STORAGE: Subd. 3. Unlawful Parking And Storage: a. No person may place, store, or allow the placement or storage of ice fish houses, skateboard ramps, play houses, or other similar nonpermanent structures outside continuously for longer than twenty four (24) hours in the front -yard area of residentially -zoned property. b. No person may place, store or allow the placement or storage of pipe, lumber, steel, machinery, or similar materials, including all materials used in connection with a business, outside on residentially -zoned property. c. No person shall cause, undertake, permit or allow the outside parking and storage of vehicles in residentially -zoned property unless it complies with the following requirements: (1) Vehicles which are parked or stored outside shall be parked upon an "improved surface ", as defined in this Code to mean asphalt. concrete, brick or Class 2 gravel) . (2) All vehicles, watercraft and other articles stored outside on residential property must be owned by a person who is a legal resident of that property. d. No person owning, driving or in charge of any vehicle with a weight classification, as specified in Minnesota Statutes, may cause or permit that vehicle to be parked outside or stand continuously for more than two (2) hours on property or public street within a residential zone in the City. (Ord. Xxx, 12- 12 -98) 1-See Sections 902.05 and 1121.09 of this Code. 902.05: DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Subd. 1. General Construction: The following procedure and specifications shall be required for all = - . :. driveway construction from streets to private garages, and parking areas attached thereto: • Page 3 a. Excavation: The driveway or parking area shall be excavated to remove all black dirt from the area to be surfaced. b. Drainage Provisions: The driveway or parking area shall be constructed so as to provide drainage from the garage to the street unless a variance is granted by the Building Inspector'. Subd. 2. Gravel Construction: After initial excavation, the driveway parking area construction shall consist of a minimum of four inches (4 ") of Class 2 crushed rock (314" down) compacted in place. Subd. 3. Concrete Construction: a. After initial excavation, the driveway shall be backfilled with Class 4 base material, compacted in place, to an elevation four inches (4 ") below the finished surface grade of the driveway. b. The driveway construction shall consist of a minimum of four inches (4 ") of three thousand five hundred (3,500) pound mix, four inch (4 ") slump with air. Subd. 4. Asphalt Construction: a. After initial excavation, the driveway shall be backfilled with Class 4 base material, compacted in place, to an elevation four inches (4 ") below the finished surface grade of the driveway. b. The driveway construction shall consist of a minimum of two inches (2 ") (compacted thickness), Class 5 base material and a minimum of two inches (2 ") (compacted thickness) bituminous wearing course conforming to Minnesota Highway Department specifications 2331. c. The bituminous wearing course material shall not be delivered to the job site until the Class 5 base material has been placed compacted. (1988 Code §44.05) Subd. 5. Brick Construction: a. After initial excavation. the driveway shall be bac filled with Class 4 base material, compacted in place. to an elevation four inches (4'2 below the finished surface grade of the driveway. b. The driveway construction shall consist of a minimum of one inch (1) compacted thickness sand base upon which the bricks or pavers are to he fitted in place. (Ord. Xxx 12 -12 -982 Page 4 1005.06: EXTERIOR AND STRUCTURAL STANDARDS: No person shall occupy, as owner - occupant, or let to another for occupancy any dwelling or multiple dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming house, rooming unit or portion thereof which does not comply with the following requirements; Subd. 2. Stairs, Porches, Railings, Sidewalks and Driveways: e. Every driveway surface shall be improved with a permanent surfacing material so as to control dust. drainage and erosion. according to the requirements as set forth in Section 902.05 of this Code and. except for R -1 and R -2 properties, every driveway surface and parking area shall be maintained year around ingood condition. o eenfrom snow and/or debris that might h_ uild up to cause a dangerous sur ace. 4 Driveways not improved at the time this ordinance becomes effective may be allowed to remain unimproved but shall not be expanded upon. (Ord Xxx. 12 ®12 -98) 1106,03: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an R -1 District: (1988 Code §40.10) Subd. 1. Accessory Buildings: Accessory buildings, such as garages or tool houses, sheds and similar buildings for storage of domestic supply and noncommercial recreational equipment. a. Private garages, parking spaces and carports as regulated by Chapter 1121, Ofd Street Parking, of this Title. Private garages are intended solely for storage of the private passenger vehicles of the residents of the premises. Such spaces can be rented to nonresidents of the property for private passenger vehicles and/or noncommercial vehicles, trailers or equipment if sufficient off-street parking, in full compliance with this Title, is provided elsewhere on the property. b. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one private garage for each dwelling. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwellings shall be required to provide off-street parking spaces for at least two (2) automobiles per family in addition to any garage spaces to be used. Every dwelling house hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so that at least a two (2) car garage, either attached or detached, can be located on said lot. c. No permit shall be issued for the construction of a residential dwelling, garage or garage expansion unless the driveway servicing the property is improved with a Page 5 permanent surfacing material so as to control dust, drainage and erosion, according to the requirements as set forth in Section 902.05 of this Code. unless the property owner provides a signed, notarized statement in which he /she /they agree to improve the drivew in con 'unction with the desired construction activities or within three months o the commencement of such activities, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. For the purposes of this Title, permanent surfacing materials are defined as concrete, asphalt or brick. de: Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen feet (15') in height, shall be five feet (5') or more from all lots lines of adjoining lots and shall be six feet (6') or more from any other building or structure on the same lot. Attached garages must conform to the front and rear setback requirements for the principle structure, and the side yard setback shall be at least five feet (5'). e. The suare- oota e o a ara e in an R -1 District shall not exceed the uare- oota e of the principal dwelling's foundation, except by conditional use permit. Lei- No garage in an R -1 District shall exceed nine hundred fifty -two (952) sixty-jSour (86-1) square feet in area, except by conditional use permit. g_,e- An outdoor living room or patio shall not be used for storage of automobiles or trucks. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than two (2) accessory buildings in any R -1 District. One of the two (2) permits must be for a garage. No accessory building other than a garage shall exceed two hundred sixteen (216) square feet, except by conditional use permit. :h° The combined square footage offorall accessory buildings in a rear yard shall not exceed occupy shore than twenty f re percent (20 25 %) of the rear yard. (Ord. 442, 7- 11 -88; Ord. Xxx, 1993 Code, 12- 12 -98) 1106.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an R -1 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 6. Garage exceeding nine hundred fifty- two(952) :. square feet. a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103.06 and subdivision 1106.03(1) of this Title. Page 6 b. The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed one thousand four hundred (1.400) one thou. and- wi ItaPrdre.l s .ety rep (1, 26 d} square feet. c d. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. d e. The width of the building cannot exceed thirty five feet (35') nor allow for more than three (3) vehicle access. e f. Should the use for which the permit was granted be changed, the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title. (Ord Xxx, 12- 12 -98) 1108°03: District: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an R -3 All permitted accessory uses allowed in an R -2 District. Enclosed garage stalls, the number of which shall not exceed the number of dwelling units in the principal building. Individual stalls shall not exceed two hundred and fifty (250) square feet each and shall be attached to one another by common interior walls which meet the Minnesota State Building Code requirements. All setback requirements as specified in Section 1104.01. Subd. 4, shall he met. Off-street loading. (Ord Xxx. 12- 12-98 1988 Code §40.13) 1121809: STALL, AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN: Subd. 1. Parking Space Size: Each parking space shall not be less than nine feet (9') wide and eighteen twetrty feet (18 26') in length exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be served adequately by access aisles. • [Subdivisions 2 through 6 remain unchanged.] Subd. 7. Surfacing: All areas, as allowed in Subdivision 1104.01(4) of this Title, to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with permanent materials suitable to Page 7 control dust, drainage and erosion, meeting the requirements of Section 902.05 of this Code • except as follows: A gravel surface material meeting the specifications of Subdivision 902.05(2) of this Code may he used for parking areas in an R -1 or R -2 District not to exceed six hundred (600) square feet or if to be used as a parking surface for an RV. the minimum area that would encompasses the wheel -base area of one (1) recreational vehicle. Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls for five (5) or more vehicles shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development ' for review, and the final drainage plan must receive the Director of Public Works /City Engineer's written approval. [Subdivisions 8 through 12 remain unchanged.] 1121.14: PROOF OF PARKING A reduction in the parking space requirements may be administratively granted by the Director of Community Development or formally in conjunction with a City Council approved development review • - or. - if the following conditions are met: (Ord. 524, 2- 22 -93; Ord. Xrc. 12- 12 -98) Subd. 1. The number of spaces being reduced does not exceed fifteen percent (15 %) of the required amount. Subd. 2. The required area for the spaces being omitted must be available for later use if necessary. Subd. 3. The required area for the spaces being omitted must be complementary and coordinated with the proposed parking spaces and access tot he property. Subd. 4. The required area for the spaces being omitted shall be designated as undevelopable other than being used for parking or access. Subd. 5. A written agreement approved by the City Attorney shall be filed with the property requiring that the owner or subsequent owners be required to improve the omitted parking spaces if needed by the use of the property. (Ord X. 12 -12 -98 Page 8 Impacts of the Code Revisions on Accessory Building Requirements Scenario Existing Code Revised Code Background Scenario 1: Replace existing single -stall garage with a 1,200 square foot 3 car garage. Scenario 2: Add 260 square feet to an existing 660 square -foot garage Scenario 3: Add 464 square feet to an existing 800 square foot back yard garage Dimensional Elements Lot area: Back yard area: 20% of back yard: Foundation area: Garage area: Shed area: Combined area: Lot area: Back yard area: 20% of back yard: Foundation area: Garage area: Shed area: Combined area: Lot area: Back yard area: 20% of back yard: Foundation area: Garage area: Shed area: Combined area: 43,560 sf 24,000 sf 4,800 sf 1,200 sf 1,200 sf na 1,200 sf 11,0000 sf 6,200 sf 1,240 sf 1,050 sf 920 sf 216 sf 1,136 sf 1 1,000 sf 5,700 sf 1,140 sf 1,050 sf 1,264 sf na 1,264 Permitted w/o CUP? NO NO NO Permitted w/ CUP? YES YES YES Permitted w/o CUP? NO YES NO Permitted w/ CUP? YES N/A NO Scenario 4: Replace storm- damaged 375 square foot garage with an 864 square foot garage. Lot area: Back yard area: 20% of back yard: Foundation area: Garage area: Shed area: Combined area: 23,000 sf 10,000 sf 2,000 sf 625 sf 864 sf 150 sf 1,014 sf YES N/A NO YES Scenario 5: Construct a 952 sf garage and move existing 216 sf garage to back yard for storage purposes. Lot area: Back yard area: 20% of back yard: Foundation area: Garage area: Shed area: Combined area: 43,560 sf 23,534 sf 4,707 sf 1,076 sf 952 sf 216 sf 1,168 sf NO YES YES N/A Page 9 Scenario Analysis: Scenario 1. In this example, the revisions to the code do not impact this particular property owner with regard to the garage construction. Under the existing Code, however, if a garage is larger than 1,000 square feet, no other accessory buildings would be allowed. In this case, not having a shed could pose a hardship, in that the lot could be quite deep. In addition, with a back yard possibly exceeding half an acre, the impact of a shed would be inconsequential. With the proposed revision to the Code, this property owner would be able to have a shed, so long as it did not exceed 200 square feet, because the new combined maximum square - footage for accessory buildings would be 1,400 square feet. On a 43,560 square foot lot, 1,400 square feet of accessory space amounts to a minimal 3 percent of the lot area. In comparison, a 1,200 square foot garage (allowed by a CUP) on the minimum -sized 1 1,000 square -foot lot covers more than ten percent of the lot and would quite possibly dwarf the home, which would not be in keeping with the character of the community. Scenario 2. In this example, the minimum -sized lot supports a 35 -foot by 30 -foot house (foundation area equal to 1,050 square feet) and a 660 square foot. garage. The owner would like to add 260 square feet to the garage, bringing the total proposed area to 920 square feet. As the Code exists currently, this could not be done without a CUP. As long as the area of the proposed garage (and existing shed) would not occupy twenty percent of the rear yard, the revised Code would allow a garage of this size. Since there is no provision limiting the combined accessory building area to a certain percentage of the lot, the combined area of 1,136 square feet would be allowed. Scenario 3. The property owner at this location would like to add 464 square feet to her existing 800 square -foot garage. Her lot is narrow and is the minimum size allowable. Under the existing regulations, this addition would be possible with a CUP, although may not be approved due to the disproportion between the area of the garage (1,264) and the area of the home (1 ,050). While the revision would caution against approving this garage due to its size relative to the house, because the garage exceeds twenty percent of the backyard, it cannot be approved. Under the old system, twenty -five percent rear yard Page 10 coverage is allowable. In neither instance could a shed be allowed, because current regs prohibit a shed if the garage exceeds 1,000 square feet. This seems to be an overly restrictive requirement, especially for large lots and lots with garages attached to the homes or alongside it. It is for this reason that this requirement has been deleted. Under the proposed regulations, however, the shed would not be allowed because the garage already exceeds the limit for accessory building coverage in the rear yard. Scenario 4. In this scenario, the property owners would like to construct an 864 square -foot garage on their half-acre lot. Under the current guidelines, this would be allowed outright because it is 864 square feet or less and does not take up more than 25 percent of the rear yard. Under proposed guidelines, however, this garage would not be allowed without a CUP because the garage is nearly 40 percent larger than the home. There is no current requirement that the garage be proportionate to the house. In this case then, the garage would seem to dominate the property and look out of place. This is one of the reasons why the garage regulations and requirements need to be revised. Scenario S. The last example presented herein is the case similar to two before the City this year alone. The property owner wishes to move an existing tiny one -car garage to the rear of the lot and replace it with a larger, more updated two -car model. The lot is 43,560 square feet, or, one acre, so there is plenty of room for the garage. However,' because of the current area regulations for garages, the proposed garage would require a CUP as it exceeds 864 square feet. The amended Code raises the limit for garages without. a CUP to 952 square feet (28 feet by 34 feet.) Thus, the applicant would not need a CUP under the revised guidelines. Because the shed does not exceed 216 square feet, no CUP is needed for that, which is the same under either system. Even if the lot were not so large, or even the minimum, a 952 square -foot would not be so imposing, unless of course the house was tiny. In that case, a CUP would be required so it no longer was a permitted garage. On the other hand, if the home's foundation were 1,200 square feet, a 952 square foot garage would blend in quite well. Page 11 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 1, 1998 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes: May 20, 1998 (special) 5. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Discussion Regarding Comprehensive Guide Plan - Housing Element (Mounds View Housing Inspector Steve Dorgan will be present) b. Discussion of the Community Background Section of the Comprehensive Plan Update 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 7. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717 -4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. June 3, 1998 (Regular) b. June 17, 1998 (Special) 2. Meeting Adjournment PLANNING COVIVIISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Steve Dorgan, Housing Inspector Subject: Comprehensive Guide Plan - Housing Element Date: June 25, 1998 As part of adopting the Comprehensive Guide Plan for the city, a "Housing Element" must be reviewed and adopted as part of the final draft. Staff has prepared some background, as well as current statistics, on housing as a starting point for reviewing and implementing the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Attached are overviews of three separate sets of housing policies adopted by the city over the last 20 years. The housing policies include: I. Comprehensive Guide Plan adopted in 1979 II. Focus 2000 Project Housing Goals in 1995 III. Livable Communities Housing Action Plan in 1996 In addition, IV. Current Housing Statistics, has been provided for your review and as required for the Housing Element of the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Steve organ, Housi nspector 717 -4023 Attachments: 1) Housing Policies•and Current Statistics 2) Map - Developable/Redevelopable Residential Land 3) Map - Year Built: Residential Structures N:\DATA\IJSERS\STEVED\S1-!ARE\pC-7 1. MEM Comprehensive Guide Plan - Housing Element City of Mounds View Ia Existing Comprehensive Guide Plan Mousing Goals and Action Plan - 1979 The following goals were adopted as part of the Housing Plan for the city Comprehensive Guide Plan in 1979. Goal 1: Provide safe, healthy and attractive residential environments which offer a broad and full choice of housing opportunities. Goal 2: Preserve the identity and improve the quality and appearance of existing residential neighborhoods. Goal 3: Provide sufficient housing and sufficient housing sizes, types and styles to meet the needs of all segments of the population, notably groups with specialized housing needs, such as low and moderate income and the elderly. Goal 4: Encourage a creative approach to the use of land and related residential development. Goal 5: Maintain planning districts within the community based upon homogeneous or compatible land use characteristics and or division by physical barriers. Goal 6: Protect residential land uses which may be significantly impacted by noise in the vicinity of the Anoka County Airport. Goal 7: Encourage community residents to undertake a program of personal energy saving habits in their homes and in their every day activities. Goal 8: Consider alternative styles of development, such as solar heated buildings or earth sheltered structures, to obtain long-term energy savings. Goal 9: Plan for and encourage development which facilitates energy conservation, yet maintains compatibility and relationships of uses. Housing Rehabilitation and Redevelopment The City adopted a policy as part of the comprehensive guide plan which would address rehabilitation of housing rather than redevelopment. The rehabilitation would be provided through accessing various funding sources available through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and Community Development Block Grants. Comprehensive Guide Plan - Housing Element City of Mounds View A housing maintenance code, used in conjunction with rehabilitation grant and loan programs to address housing maintenance, was identified as a tool to identify deterioration and blight of the city's housing stock. This involved the scheduling of routine inspections of the city's housing to identify housing in need of rehabilitation. Innovative Housing The Comprehensive Guide Plan identified standards for innovative housing types such as solar and earth sheltered housing. These guidelines assisted the city in developing development standards which did not restrict innovative housing styles. Housing Assistance The Comprehensive Guide Plan identified the need for housing to accommodate low and moderate income families. In 1979, 55 families were assisted by Section 8 rental vouchers or certificates. The Metropolitan Council established goals or allocations of the number of units and funding a community could expect to received for the provision of low and moderate income housing. The Metropolitan Council identified 211 housing units be provided over 10 years as Mounds View's goal. The Comprehensive Guide Plan promotes a diverse housing stock and identified the three large mobile home parks and Section 8 subsidy programs as providing low and moderate income housing. In addition, several State and Federal financing programs were identified as resources to assist with the community's housing needs. II. City of Mounds View Focus 2000 Project Housing Goals - 1995 A comprehensive Housing Stock Analysis was conducted by the City and reviewed by the Neighborhoods committee of the Focus 2000 Project in 1995. The report provided current information relating to demographics, housing characteristics and housing programs and funding sources. The conclusions of the committee's findings are as follows: 1. Encourage and assist multi - family property owners to apply for housing rehabilitation assistance. 2. Continue to explore funding possibilities, both loan and grants, that the City could use for single- family or multi - family housing rehabilitation projects. 3. Establish revolving loan fund for citizens of Mounds View to use for single - family housing rehabilitation. 4. Promotion of first -time home buyers and closing cost/down payment assistance programs. Page 2 Comprehensive Guide Plan - Housing Element City of Mounds View 5. Sponsor a remodeling fair to encourage housing rehabilitation. 6. Explore the benefits and drawbacks of a Point-of-Sale or Truth -in- Housing program. 7. Assist in establishing a Property Manager's Coalition. M. City of Mounds View's Livable Communities Housing Action Plan -1996 When the city submitted it's Livable Communities Action Plan to the Metropolitan Council in June of 1996, the community was well within the range for providing affordable housing according to Metropolitan Council statistics. At the time, the rents for the larger apartment complexes fell way below the fair market rents published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The city's goal was to continue to provide the existing level of affordable housing but improve the quality and livability of the housing. At the time, the concern was with the aging housing stock and the continued substandard condition of some housing within the city. With the combination of an aging housing stock, lower valued homes and lower income families, there was a concern for the condition of the housing stock in future years. Mounds View's goal was to attempt to address the housing issues immediately before they became a bigger problem. The following housing programs were identified to address housing problems within the city at that time. Housing Assistance Section 8 Vouchers: The Metropolitan HRA administers the Section 8 program in the City of Mounds View. In 1996, approximately 40 families were using section 8 vouchers or certificates in the city of Mounds View. (In 1998, 75 families receive Section 8 vouchers or certificates) Minnesota Cities Participation Program: The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency offers low - interest mortgage programs to cities state wide to assist low to moderate income families in securing a mortgage for their first home. The City of Mounds View had participated in the program from 1995 -1997. The first two years 6 families received assistance in purchasing homes. (In 1997 no families requested and received assistance, therefore, the City was dropped from the program for two years and will be unable to participate until the year 2000.) Housing Developments The following programs expand or preserve the community's stock of affordable housing through new construction or rehabilitation. The specific programs listed below are those which Page 3 Comprehensive Guide Plan m Housing Element City of Mounds View Mounds View has taken advantage of for the residents. Low Income Housing Tax Credits: The City of Mounds View in cooperation with Common Bond Communities applied for and received low income housing tax credits to assist in the construction of Silver Lake Pointe, an 83 unit senior housing complex. Eight of the units are offered at fair market values, the others are offered at a reduced rent. (The complex has been completely filled since being built in 1995.) Section 202: The city also has a Section 202 elderly/handicapped building with 40 units known as Wildwood Manor. The building was built in 1983 and continues to be fully occupied. Housing Maintenance, Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Because Mounds View is a fully developed suburb with aging housing stock and lower income levels, the biggest concern is maintenance, rehabilitation and redevelopment. This is the area in which the City is providing or promoting the most. Listed below are programs offered to Mounds View residents in 1996. Ramsey County Rental Rehabilitation Program: Ramsey County offers a rental rehabilitation program using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. The program is administered by the St. Paul Planning and Economic Development Department. They receive funding once a year from Ramsey County. Each year, the City of Mounds View sends a letter to all rental property owners in the city to market the loan program. (The city receives moderate response to the Rental Rehab Loan Program) Ramsey County Deferred Loan Program: Ramsey County offers a deferred loan program for single - family, owner occupied dwellings. This program is also funded with CDBG funds. The city has received good response over the years. The City promotes the program through the City Newsletter. Home Energy Loans: Ramsey County distributes funding to the Energy and Environmental Resource Center for Home Energy Loans. This program is promoted on a periodic basis. Tax Increment Financing (TIF): The City of Mounds View created a Housing Replacement program using TIF. The purpose of this program is to purchase homes that are dilapidated, blighted, undersized and undervalued as compared to the neighborhood. The homes are then demolished and the land resold to a builder or developer for the construction of a new home. Housing Maintenance Code: The City of Mounds View has had a Housing Maintenance Code since 1974. The code has been amended from time to time to provide a stronger enforcement Page 4 Comprehensive Guide Plan - Housing Element City of Mounds View procedure. The Code requires that all rental units be inspected within a four year period. Each year the City inspects at least 25% of all units to ensure rental properties comply with the Housing Code. Manufactured Housing: The city has three manufactured home parks with a total of 585 mobile homes. The manufactured home parks provide a substantial portion of the city's affordable housing. Local Initiatives Economic Development Authority (EDA): The EDA was created in March, 1994. One of the objectives of the EDA is to provide housing opportunities for residents. Because the City is new to providing housing opportunities to the residents, funding had not yet been accessed. Nonprofit Capacity Building Grant Program: In 1996, the City applied for a Capacity Building Grant for staff training. (The grant was not received.) Local Official Controls and Approvals The City of Mounds View has not changed the development requirements for the residential zoning districts of the city. The city may consider evaluating the number of local controls on the cost of residential development and redevelopment. For instance, the city may consider: 1. Zero lot line developments allowing duplexes making affordable housing opportunities available. 2. Zoning requirements such as setbacks, minimum lot size and minimum square footage for new housing and redevelopment. Housing Demand - Goals and Policies for Future Life -cycle Needs Affordable Housing Mounds View's population showed a slight decline in 1990; however, the projected population for the year 2010 is 12,800. The City of Mounds View is a fully developed suburb, and the population should remain relatively stable. The existing housing stock should serve the anticipated population of the city for the next decade. Page 5 Comprehensive Guide Plan - Housing Element City of Mounds View N. City of Mounds View Current Housin tatisties 1 -2. Total number and percent of dwelling units by type. Single Family Duplexes Fourplexes Apartments 2,731 43 8 0 Condos 185 Manufactured TOTAL 585 41 79 108 1,244 0 0 3,552 (71%) 1,472 (29 %) 2,772 122 116 1,244 185 585 5,024 3. Value of owner occupied units and rent ranges of rental units. Owner Occupied Single Family/Duplex Maximum - $238,100 Minimum - $31,800 Average - $96,463.78 Rental Rates Average 1 Bedroom- $493 Average 2 Bedroom- $591 Average 3 Bedroom- $768 Average Rent (1 and 2 Bedroom)- $542 Average Rent (1990 Census)- $459 Page 6 55% 2% 2% 25% 4% 12% 100% Comprehensive Guide Plan - Housing Element City of Mounds View 4. Number and type of publicly subsidized housing. 40 Apartment/Townhouse - Low Income Housing Tax Credit (Silver Lake Commons) 10 Apartment/Townhouse - Hollman Units (Silver Lake Commons) 75 Apartment/Single Family - Metro HRA Section 8 Units (city wide) 40 Apartment - Senior Section 8 Units (Wildwood Manor) 71 Apartment - Senior Tax Credit Units (Silver Lake Point) Total Subsidized Units - 228 (15% of total rental units in city - 1,472) 5. Households by current age of householder (number and percent) Age Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total Percent 15 -24 63 260 323 6.9% 25 -34 724 585 1,309 27.9 35 -44 947 271 1,218 26.0 45 -54 679 97 776 16.5 55 -64 508 38 546 11.6 65 -74 325 22 347 7.4 75 and over 114 59 173 3:7 Total 3,360 1,332 4,692 100% Source: 1990 Census Population by Age Group Age Population Percent 0 -19 3,467 28.7% 20 -24 1,097 9.0 25 -34 2,560 21.2 35 -49 2,739 22.7 50 -64 1,474 12.2 65-74 561 4.6 75 and over 194 1.6 Total 12,092 100.0% Source: 1990 Census Page 7 Comprehensive Guide Plan - Housing Element City of Mounds View 6. Permitted densities for residential development. Single- family - 0 -3 units/ acre Multifamily - 4+ units /acre 7. Land potentially available for residential development and /or redevelopment. See attached map 8. Age of current housing stock (see attached map) Before 1940 1940 -1949 1950 -1959 1960 -1 969 1970 -1979 1980-1989 1990 - Present TOTAL 84 305 970 0 4 4 360 776 194 83 70 12 84 309 974 430 788 32 226 3% 10% 34% 15% 27% 8% 2,772 0 122 83 3% 2,894 100% 9. Extent of need for housing rehabilitation: number and percent of units needing rehabilitation (if available) or narrative description. onsI on rcen�� Excellent 100 2M% Good Average Below Average Poor Condemned/Uninhabitable TOTAL Page 8 2,813 1,508 392 201 10 5,024 56.0% 30.0% 7.8% • 4.0% 0.2% 100% Sources: Ramsey County Assessors Data (1998). Mounds View Housing Study (1995) Comprehensive Guide Plan - Housing Element City of Mounds View 10. Current Housing Vacancy rates. Single Family Homes - 9 listings active - No vacant units $111,067 $100,998 $94,000 $99,700 $96,700 $90,400 Multiple Family - 4 condemned units Approximately 1.5% vacancy rate N;IDATAIUSERSISTE VEDISHAREISTATS. WPD Page 9 al MEM SEM MEN mri 'Yri'61ay11'r1llIHli��aa ,k E�Y � - GYY77EYL' 1° El ORS[ El },.1151 iI.YJ 4.:,1 f',31 111111i .11 Y ii_ MIN urn a ai L1.. awl van 619=;_ cumin rFAm7 I1 Nowa rI� r IP! NW ow 11111 MEI MI Pkil Iv 11;011+7 = 11%1 Ern marlinsii pia �I to nrau G71..:1 lilElla MIMI NOM Imo Ir rim RE EN DA HI EIDO oa GEOMAIRMI LTINTIMMIRP Nam Q EINEAZ tIO 1 CM De MI L IFS rraNi 11111111i1 ii„,, W CIGf ;� BE aim .mui .Wml op req maim KM iuu•II , iiik ' piLrpiLvrc MI NIP C PSggIMwTORI3 rim r 1I ri UN] Structure Year Built Before 1940 1940 - 1949 1950 - 1959 1960 - 1969 1970 - 1979 1980 - 1989 —1 1990 to present 7 -1 Mobile Home Park Structure ran UPI UPI RIM a�1+r L„ I!II�'Jp� rem Min EMI 1311 u•po Cl7 r 1• P,IUII nrn 1i7• LIR 1017 City of Mounds View Single Family and Duplex Residential Structures a0ull ®Rr ® ®�gsgsd e a 0drr 6r01711C1dYMB a n eabgaa G■ BSAaaYa a At mrdrrkrrr7nAtrrn ®rrrd®rorrrrrry a 4aaa 'mia !16®4llY ntparlADIPA6W °> errs ®ldrPrrrCrAr7 /� rarr+aaraorsa o MVCommunity Development Department, June 98 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 3, 1998 1VIounds Ayiew City Hall r 2401 Highway 10, 11_u l.1 nds` yew MN 55112 1 Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, C Obert (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), and Stevenson, Absent: Council Liaison Koopmein Also present: Community Deve.. y went D Recorder Dave Hixe vµ :0 p.m. , Brooks, Miller 7lanning Associate Ericson, and 3. Citizens' Requests and oninient&o y Ite[ns ':'r ~ on the Agenda. lwere no ctem-`41 ..a - sts or c 4. App Nomi Indeto Minutes qk POriiing Case No. 5294§, 2085 Oakwood Drive, Consideration of Resolution 2 f „51 -98 a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Per x a and zed (280 square feet) Accessory Building, Leonard Medrud �� Fes, ��Y� �u att , F � ordain. air approval. on items not on the agenda. Page Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 3, 1998 Page 2 5. Planning Case No, 529 -98 2085 Oakwood Drive Applicants: Leonard Medrud and Arthur Jordan Consideration of Resolution No 551 -98, a Resolution Recommending vprovatt a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized (280 square feet) Accessory Building. The applicants, Leonard Medrud and Arthur Jorc a ` were ab Associate Ericson gave his presentation as folio` The applicants, Leonard Medrud and Arthur Jor. , e " tly in the process of adding a 22' x 22' garage and 7' x 22' mudroor to their o to h me located at 2085 Oakwood Drive. Prior to the new garage addition the a lt�t` , s the existing 14' x 22' single -car- detached garage, which i c 's ii e backyard o t e residence. The applicants were requesting a Conditio ezr- f onve e existing 14' x 22' foot garage into a accessory building. sexist to tinspected and seemed to be in sound condition. The applica ty will be used for storage purposes. No letters or phone calls sition to the project. Theql cation of t *eg: g shed be 5 Tome will hide it from general public view. Be .§ e buildma t y# left in its current location there will be no change in its view fron a ;went props .:: Staff re m e � appro arming Commission resolution o. 540 -98, recommending to th VCity Counc oval of a Conditional Use Permit for Leonard Medrud and Arthur rdan, allowin g ,Silpare -foot oversized shed at 2085 Oakwood Drive, with -stipulations as folliliv 1. The Codtional Use Permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of Citouncil approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the 4�€tf Mounds view. The shed shall be kept in good repair and maintained into the future so as to provide a uniform and consistent building appearance with the existing house. The shed shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. Mounds View Planning Commission June 3, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 3 4. No other sheds or accessory buildings, other than the garage currently under construction, shall be allowed on this lot. 5. There shall be no motor vehicle access to this shed, nor shall any magi vehicle be stored within said structure. �. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Co Sion fo 'deration of the application. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to approve Resolutio approval by the City Council of a Condition Use Permit': shed for Leonard Medrud and Arthur Jordan at 2085 Oa Case No. 529 -98, with stipulation, as amended. Ayes - 5 6. Staff Reports/Information Items A. Di cu i.n fthe .mm Director Jopke distribute Comprehensive Plan for Co 'ssion Meetin esolution re or an oversized g ag torage ve; Mounds View Planning mpreh -n ive Plan pity Background Section of the and comments at the next Planning issioners' Reports -red from the Chairperson or Commissioners. 8. `Adjournment to There being Chairperson no: ' rther business before the regular meeting of the Planning Commission erson adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m. regular meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Develoment Director PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 3, 1998 new City Hall Yew MN 55112 Mounds 2401 Highway 10, ; und 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson: 2. Roll Call :00 p.m. Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Comity ssioners-_ Obert (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), and Stevenson Absent. Council Liaison Koopmeine Also present: Community Devepment D Recorder Dave Hix. 3. Citizens' Requests and rnenis g Items, `` t on the Agenda. , Brooks, Miller aging Associate Ericson, and ,ire no ci 4. A pp 14 1r- vests or CG .°e on items not on the agenda. Nomi sidereV_.. . pproval. fling Case No 529x98, 2085 Oakwood Drive, Consideration of Resolution 6251 -98, a Resoln Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Oa utior and - y tzed (280 square feet) Accessory Building, Leonard Medrud Page 2 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5. Planning Case No. 529 -98 2085 Oakwood Drive June 3, 1998 Page 2 Applicants: Leonard Medrud and Arthur Jordan Consideration of Resolution No 551 -98, a Resolution Recommending qprova i 'Ya Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized (280 square feet) Accessory Buil4ing. „« wn �. The applicants, Leonard Medrud and Arthur Jordan were abser. Associate Ericson gave his presentation as follow; The applicants, Leonard Medrud and Arthur for adding a 22' x 22' garage and 7' x 22' mudroomro their' 's Oakwood Drive. Prior to the new garage as4Itiol the appi ebac tly in the process of e located at 2085 d the existing 14' x he residence. The 22' single- car - detached garage, which iisAi. applicants were requesting a Condit o % Y garage into a accessory building. in sound condition. The applicatt purposes. No letters or phone calls JO been ion of tlt build' hed belu " c me will hide it from neral public view. � .left in its current location there will be no change in its view tide existing 14' x 22' foot spected and seemed to be y will be used for storage sition to the project. acent propo pprovl- anning Commission resolution o. 540 -98, recommending r oval of a Conditional Use Permit for Leonard Medrud and Arthur pare -foot oversized shed at 2085 Oakwood Drive, with The Cortional Use Permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of Cit Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the Mounds view. 'The shed shall be kept in good repair and maintained into the future so as to provide a uniform and consistent building appearance with the existing house. 3. The shed shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 3, 1998 Page 3 4. No other sheds or accessory buildings, other than the garage currently under construction, shall be allowed on this lot. 5. There shall be no motor vehicle access to this shed, nor shall any m?° vehicle be stored within said structure. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Co application. ttt sion aderation of the Motion/Second: Brasaemie/Miller to approve Resolutiojt approval by the City Council of a Condition Use Permitf shed for Leonard Medrud and Arthur Jordan at 2085 Oa Case No. 529 -98, with stipulation, as amended. Ayes - 5 6e Staff Reports/Information Items A. 1 -98 esolution r pgalverii, ° or an oversized g ;= forage e; Mounds View Planning Discussion of the Commuty Bach. Director Jopke distribute Comprehensive Plan for Co a 'ssion Meetin 0 Vttof the Comprehensive Plan the Co 's revie, nity Background Section of the nd comments at the next Planning issioners' Reports Bred from the Chairperson or Commissioners. Adjournment to There being norther business before the regular meeting of the Planning Commission Chairperson ' rson adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m. e regular meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Develoment Director PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Mounds Mew City Hall 2401 Highway y 10 11�bu ,nds wMN55ll2 :; ) 1. Call To Order The meeting was called to order by Vice- Chair snso 2. Roll Call Members present: Vice- Chairperson Stevenso Miller, and Obert. Absent: Chairperson Peterson (excels asaemle, Brooks, Also present: Planning Associate 3. Citizens' Requests and Cents citizen .. e� "sts or c 3 Index to Planning Case_, Nos 552 -9..8 nd 55 eAr of an atdment to the n the Agenda items not on the agenda. 735 ake Road, Consideration of Resolution 1 . ions recommending approval to the City Council erview Estates PUD and a development review for the revised senior residential coronent of the PUD. Realife Cooperative of My it ds View, Inc. x g Case No . -95, 3025 County Road H, Consideration of Resolution a resad: ion recommending approval of a minor subdivision to the • Wtane and Nancy Peterson. •. Page 2 4 Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 2 4. Approval of Minutes: May 6, 1998 Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to approve the Mounds View, ommission meeting minutes (regular) of May 6, 1998, as amended The motion carried. Ayes - 5 Nay 5e Planning Case No. 530 -98 7735 Silver Lake Road Applicant: Realife Cooperative of Mounds Vie: Consideration of Resolution Nos. 552 -98 an s recd ending approval to the City Council of an amendment to the Silveew Estates • V D velopment review for the revised senior residential component ofthe PUD. ; The applicant, Realife Coo Ass l<e Ericso. Reaiti'- t comport I 1997. Vie. &JJ , located on thet n .dvelopment wo1 =. ousing building. the site. rative present =- Dhows: nds Vi Silvery tcf Realife of M nds View Inc., develops cooperative housing. According to the applicant s ty.-, ;;4 evelopment offers seniors 62 and over an alternative type of home ownership them more freedom and less responsibility than conventional home ownership. -, sidents own and operate the development through a nonprofit cooperative corporation. also b Inc., was present. s proposing tosubstitute a revised senior housing s PUD which was initially approved on December 8, pied by the Holiday Station Store and office buildings Silver Lake Road and Highway 10. The proposed senior housing -unit facility instead of the originally planned 82 -unit senior 'flange, if approved, would require an amendment to the PUD for The proposed building is of a three - story- serpentine design over a one- story - precast- concrete garage. All units will have decks that overhang the building by six feet. The garage area will have one -way traffic with angled parking stalls to foster safe vehicular Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 3 movement. The City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed have given the project their approval. The PUD requires a minimum of 89 parking stalls. The plan as posed shows 123 parking stalls: 25 stalls in the front of the building (four beirl andie accessible) and 78 parking stalls inside the building. The exterior parkin ` g s ,, fitly encroaches into the required front setback of the property. The•A, ®ovedt 0 feet. The plans show the parking lot at 10 feet. The building elf encroac . ' et into the approved 27 -foot setback, which has necessitate e PUD dment gg of th �3 PUD document would need to be revised to sho ' : 23 -fo 04 building se . " c hnges were proposed or needed in regards to utilities.:; arshal has revs ew. revised plans and has indicated that a fire hydrant o be installed on the east side of Silver Lake Road. The landscape plan is acce , „ a . ' • *e exception: City Forester Wriskey has recommended substituting Red Sp1 dor .s t :. r the Radiant Crabs, which are susceptible to disease in the su y .nths. Th ge in regards to building access has been the elimination, c an intern a ate driveway. The lighting plan, as submitted, is in compo bode, e light stand height is 15 feet and the foot candles fall withir e requi a:. A stipulation will need to bedn addition of the recommend The ommission w S . 411y to re`n•t ri tes. Staff is is �' anson,a'” e& 0. fealife Inc., has beer ' eveloping senior cooperative housing since 1978. They currently have developments in'Edina, Burnsville, Eden Prairie, and Brooklyn Park. All buildings are operated urtder the same cooperative ownership approach. A senior, 62 and over, buys a share the cooperative for a predetermined amount of money. The share entitles ' e owner a rtment rental privileges, property tax benefits, and mortgage interest • >efYei is just as they would in conventional home ownership. A management consultant, Realife Inc., is hired to help run the day -to -day operations of the facility. olution, No. 553 -98, requiring the e proposed setbacks were acceptable. een the property lines and the parking lot was esolution Nos. 552 -98 and 553 -98. Mounds View Inc., gave his presentation as follows: The rent from the apartments goes to cover the building mortgage, maintenance funds, and property tax fund. A board of directors is established from within the residents to oversee the management of the building. Only the board of directors can authorize an increase in the rental fees. Hanson stated, "Historically, rent increases have been held to a Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 4 minimum because the building owners are the renters." The loan for the building is HUD guaranteed. Before HUD will the development must be 90 percent presold. e project, Of the proposed development's 77 units, 36 two room apart ave a share • • cost from $17,500 to $22,000. The monthly rent on these 3 , units wil15range from $ - .0 a month to $580 a month. The rent covers all expenses e e et telephon= t nd • cable. There is a cooperative owned mini -bus to og the transportatioe' s of the residents. There are three 1550 square foot apartm will rent for $995 with a share cost of $36,000. No rental rate or share fee wase ..h remaining 38 one - bedroom apartments. There are four laundry rooms per floor ' ' : t l : 'ng two s and two dryers. The use of the laundry rooms is included . ; w ` °o " a fee...• ac floor has a storage room. The common space availabl rough? ..f ; �als more that 25,000 square feet. These common spac includ-,a rarie tit' M• room (food service at the option of the residents), gam gms, media rooms" raft rooms, and a shop in the basement. Commissioner Bras t. in expres engirt ping on th ;; P §€ ;ed setbac ye Mr.ns o :g- i numbe ..:7 buildin out the building and parking lot the parking, as shown, had more than the required ese parking stalls could be removed to bring the etback regulations. associate Erieso a amended that Resolution No. 552 -98 be revised by deleting the � P feren.ce to a 10!fo parking lot setback and recommended that Resolution No. 553 -98 be revised to req € °ed the applicant to update the site plans to show a 30 -foot parking lot setback, the addition of a fire hydrant on the east side of Silver Lake Road and to show on the east sideilver Lake Road and to show the NURP pond not encroaching into the etland . t. yo'S. t•1 Otto d: Brasaemle/Obert to approve Resolution No.552 -98, as amended, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of a PUD amendment as requested by Realife Cooperative of Mounds View, Inc.; Planning Case 530 -98. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 5 The motion carried. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to approve Resolution No. 553 -98, a recommending to the City Council approval of a development eview a Cooperative of Mounds View; Planning Case No. 530-98, r :stipula Ayes - 5 The motion carried. 6. Planning Case No. 527 -98 3025 County Road H Applicant: Duane and Nancy Peterson Consideration of Resolution No. 549 -98, solutio subdivision to the City Council. Nays - 0 Zl' ended, a resolution 4tt'd by Realife ended. pproval of a minor The applicant, Duane Pe Assn g " e Ericso Duan lots fro surve v t. Mki Ic w requesting approval of a minor subdivision to create two 025 County Road H. A copy of the required shown.' € proposed lot split was presented. The property frontage on Pleasant View Drive and 225 feet along County s proposing to split off the west 125 feet of the lot to create a ewer lot. The remaining 100 foot by 100 foot lot, 10,000 square feet, would be 1;,000 square feet too small to be a legal lot by Mounds View standards. In order to rectify is situation, the applicant had arranged to purchase a 10 foot wide by 100 foot lone- of property from the neighbor to the east, Mr. Steve Borden, residing aa3009Qnty Road H. A simple deeded land transfer would be executed between Mr. €ii Mr. Peterson to accomplish the land acquisition. en iy has ad H. The ap 2,500 square fo The proposed legal descriptions and certificate of survey had been reviewed by the City's Engineering Technician. The City Attorney has been asked to draft an easement document to convey the drainage and utility easements. It was stated that a $825 park dedication fee, 5 percent of the value of the land not Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 6 including the land under the existing home, would need to be collected as a condition of approval. There was also an unpaid water utility bill that Ericson requested n''r- applicant and the City Clerk "take care of " as a condition of approval. Staff was recommending approval of Resolution 54 the City Council approval of this minor subdivisio Ralph Gale Jr., counsel for Mr. Peterson, state approval. He told the Commission that the cond agreement would be submitted shortly. Parcel A that it will be developed as a single- family home. it, will remain as is. 0 - e mmending to et to si �,' :7 • re of the c'� g �` o id be met and a $; . .�: e on the market with the hopes 'ch currently has a home on Motion/Second: ObertlStevenson to approve R ittn. ;`: • the City Council approval of this minor subdi. 527 -98, as amended. Ayes -5 The motion carried. 7. rts/Info -98, a re e on recommending to ipulati0 d°, Planning Case No. A. :`isc € ton of that mms ity Background Section of the Comprehensive Associate Erics acking informati we tide Commission the discussion would be rescheduled due to Update the Theater Project ' soda cson told the Commission the City is waiting to receive a signed ;y eI gent agreement from the property owner. As soon as this document is received s for construction will be issued. C. 0 City Filing Policy Associate Ericson told the Commission the Marty family had informed the City that information and petitions were missing from the City's files on the proposed Harstad Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 7 development. The Martys have requested that the City improve its filing system to better serve the interests of its residents. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Report' °' No reports were considered from the ChairpersonT e CoQ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Plannir sion Special Meeting, Vice - Chairperson Stevenson adjourned the meeting at (The meeting immediately adjou Respectfully Submitted, Rick Jopk Commu MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 1998 7 :00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. Cali to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes: a. June 3, 1998 (Regular) b. June 17, 1998 (Special) 5. Staff Reports /Information Items a. Discussion Regarding Comprehensive Guide Plan - Land Use Element b. Planning Commission Vacancy and Terms ( Verbal Report) c. Update on Overton Foyer Expansion at 2824 Woodale Drive 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 7. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717 -4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** (Immediately Following Special Meeting) AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. July 1, 1998 (Regular) 2. Meeting Adjournment PLAnNING COVIMISSIO■ MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission, From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Date: July 10, 1998 At the July 1, 1998 meeting the Planning Commission began its discussion of the land use element of the comprehensive plan. A good discussion of the housing plan portion of the land use element occured. Staff will finalize the housing plan for inclusion in a draft land use element for future commission action. At the July 15, 1998 meeting discussion of the land use element will continue. It is suggested that the commission have a detailed discussion of existing and future land use in Mounds View. To assist with the discussion I have included in your packet copies of the current comprehensive plan map, the current zoning map, and an existing land use map. I have also included a set of land use definitions which was developed by the 135W corridor coalition. The existing land use map is based on these definitions. The future land use map should be based on these definitions, to the extent possible. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached maps and definitions and be prepared to discuss what land use changes are necessary in the future. If there are any corrections which need to be made to the maps, please let us know so that we can make the corrections. N:I DATA \GROUPS\COMDEVIPLANCOM M17- 15- 98.MEM North Metro I -35W Corridor Coalition Land Use Designations (Draft Definitions as of 12/23/97) Following are the draft Land Use designations, definitions, notes, and samples developed by the North Metro I -35W Corridor Coalition's Land Use Subcommittee. Some rewording of definitions, notes, and samples may occur before final land use designations are adopted. Note, Land use designations, unless otherwise specrf eci refer to the predominant identifiable land use on a parcel or portion thereof A. Agricultural Definition: Land used for agricultural purposes, including farming dairying, pasturage, horticulture, floriculture, viticulture, and animal and poultry husbandry and accessory uses; provided that such accessory uses shall be incidental to the agricultural activities.' Note: 'Agricultural properties with a residential density of less than one unit per twenty acres may be considered Residential if a majority of the land is not used for agrrculhu'al production (Hobby Farms). 'Some tredittanal Agricultural uses may not be considered Agricultural if they conform more closely with definitions and samples for commercial or industrial land uses Samples: Agricultural land uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: • Cash Grain or General Farm • Timber or Forest Lands • Other Agricultural Use • Sod Farms B. Residential Definition: Land containing a building or portion thereof used exclusively for residential purposes, including one- family, two-family, and multiple family dwellings, but not including hotels, motels, and boarding and lodging houses, nursing homes, or elderly care facilities; or open space within or related to a residential developmen4 not in individually owned lots or dedicated for public use, but which is designed and intended for the common use or enjoyment of the residents of the development Residential land use is categorized by density (dwelling units/acre) by dividing the total nwnber of units on each parcel by the parcel area.' Nate: Residential properties with a density of less than one unit per twenty acres may be designated as Agricultural f a majority of the land is used for agricultural production (Hobby Fans). Samples: Residential land uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: • Apartments, 1 -9 Rental Units • Apartments, 10 -19 Rental Units • Apartments, 20-49 Rental Units • Apartments, 50 or More Units • Apartment Misc. Improvements • Trailer or Mobile Home Park B Single Family Dwelling, Platted Lot • Two Family Dwelling, Platted Lot • Conversion ▪ Three Family Dwelling, Platted Lot • Double Dwelling • 1/2 Double Dwelling • Condominium • Condominium Non -Tax Lot ® Mobile Home on Real Estate • Townhome -Inner • Townhome -Outer a Townhome Non -Tax Outlot a Other Residential C. Commercial/Retail I.) Neighborhood Definition: Land use primarily engaged in the provision of goods or services with a primary service radius of 1 to 1.5 miles. Neighborhood Commercial/Retail Land Uses would typically be located in a predominantly residential area and have a Gross Leasable Area (GLA) of approximately 25,000 square feet or less. Samples: Neighborhood Commercial/Retail land uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: • Small (Under 10,000 sq. ft..) Detached Retail • Neighborhood Shopping Centers • Restaurant, Cafeteria, and/or Bar • Dry Cleaning Plants and Laundries • Automotive Service Station • Barber/Beauty Shops if.) Community Definition: Land use principally engaged in the provision of goods or services with a primary service radius of 3 to 5 miles. Community Commercial/Retail Land Uses would typically be located in a small commercial/retail center with a Gross Leasable Area (GLA) of approximately 50,000 to 150,000 square feet. Samples: Community Commercial/RetaiI land uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: • Supermarkets • Discount Stores & Jr. Dept. Stores • Community Shopping Center ▪ Other Retail Structures a Funeral Homes • Full Service Banks • Savings & Loans ® Auto Car Sales and Services • Bowling Alleys ® Restaurant, Cafeteria, and/or Bar • Automotive Service Station • Other Commercial Structures Regional Definition: Land use principally engaged in the provision of goods or services with a primary service radius of 10 or more miles. Regional CommerciaURetail Land Uses would typically be located in or near a Iarge commercial/retail center with a Gross Leasable Area (GLA) of approximately 350,000 square feet or more. Samples: Regional Commercial/Retail land uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: • Nurseries • Full Line Department Stores • Regional Shopping Center • Parking Garage Structure & Lots • Parking Ramps ® Theaters • Drive -in Theaters • Lodge Halls and Amusement Parks • Marine Service Facilities ▪ Sport/Public Assembly Facility iv.) Highway /Convenience Definition: Land use principally engaged in the provision of goods or services that primarily services customers attracted from a nearby major transportation arterial, Samples: Highway /Convenience Commercial/Retail land uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: • Motels and Tourist Cabins ® Hotels • Drive -in Rest/Food Service Facility • Gas Station • Automotive Service Station • Car Washes D. Office Definition: Land use predominantly involved in acbm'nistrative, professional, or clerical services. Samples: Office land uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: ▪ Office Building, 1 -2 Stories • Office Building, 3 or More Stories Walkup • Office Building, 3 or More Stories Elevator • Veterinary Clinic • Medical Clinics and Offices E. Mixed Use Definition: Land containing a building with significant amounts of residential uses in combination with commercial and/or office uses.' Notes: Land is identified as Mixed Use only if it contains buildings with stacked or multiple uses in which there is a significant amount of residential use. Properties with only a small amount of residential use (such as caretakers quarters, etc.) are assigned the predominant land use. Samples: Mixed Use land would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: Residential apartments over commercial or office uses F. Industrial L) Light Definition: Land used primarily in the manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly, packaging incidental storage, sales, and distribution of predominantly previously prepared materials, finished products or parts. Light Industrial land uses would typically have all processing within buildings, require limited exterior storage, generate limited amounts of truck or rail traffic, and be free of hazardous or objectionable elements such as noise, odor, dust smoke, glare, or other pollutants Samples: Light Industrial land uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: • Greenhouses, Vegetables & Floriculture • Food & Drink Process Plants and Storage ▪ Manufacturing & Assembly, Light • Small Shops (Machine, Tool & Die, etc.) • Other Industrial Structures e Flex Industrial Center ▪ Mini Warehouse • Research and Development Facility if.) Heavy Definition: Land used primarily in the manufacture and/or processing of products from large bulky, predominantly raw, extracted or hazardous materials; or use engaged in the storage of flammable, explosive, or other materials that may pose a threat to public health or safety. Heavy Industrial land uses may require exterior storage of large equipment or material, be engaged in outside processing or assembly, generate significant amounts of truck and/or rail traffic, or emit limited amounts of objectionable elements such as noise, odor, dust, smoke, glare, or other pollutants. Samples: Heavy Industrial land uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: • Foundries & Heavy Manufacturing Plants ® Grain Elevators • Commercial Warehouses • Commercial Truck Terminals G. Institutional Definition: Land used for primarily religious, governmental, educational, social or health care facilities excluding clinics, Samples: Institutional land uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: • Nursing Homes & Private Hospitals • Exempt Property Owned by USA • Exempt Property Owned by State of iv1N a Exempt Property Owned by Counties ▪ Firestations • Exempt Property Owned by Municipalities • Sport/Public Assembly Facility • Library • Exempt Property Owned by Board of Education • Exempt Property Owned by Private Schools • Charitable Exempt Hospital/Nursing Home • Welfare /Charitable Facility • Churches, Etc. Public Worship — Private • Graveyards Monuments, Cemeteries H. Sport[Recreation i) Indoor Definition Land containing a building(s) developed, user; and maintained primarily for recreational activities. Sarre les: Indoor Sport/Recreation Iand uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: ▪ Ice/Hockey Arenas • Indoor Soccer Fields • Domed recreational facilities • Large scale health/fitness clubs • Indoor swimming pools ii) Outdoor Definition: Land used primarily for public recreation activities improved with playing fields, playground or exercise equipment and associated structures Samples: Outdoor Sport/Recreation land uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: • Baseball/Softball fields /stadiums • Soccer /football fields/stadiums • Golf Courses • Golf Driving Ranges • Mini Golf Courses • Playground equipment L Open Space 1) Passive Definition: Land used and maintained for resource protection, amenity, or buffer, which supports unorganized public recreational activities and which may contain trails, picnic areas, public fishing/boating docks, etc. Samples: Passive Open Space uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: • Exempt Cultural & Nature Exhibits ii.) Natural Definition: Predominantly undeveloped or unaltered land preserved in its natural state for environmental or aesthetic purposes. Samples: Natural Open Space uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: Wetlands • Timber or Forest Lands ® Nature Preserves J. Transportation/ Utility i.) Vehicular/Pedestrian Right -of -Way Definition: An area or strip of land either public or private, on which an irrevocable right -of passage has been recorded for the use of vehicles or pedestrians or both. Samples: Transportation Right -of -Way uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: • Skyways • Street Right-of-Way • Sidewalks/Paths/Trails ii.) Railway Definition: An area or strip of land occupied or intended to be occupied by a railroad or other similar use. Samples: Railway uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: ® Railroad Real Property Used in Operation • Railroad Real Property Not Used in Operation iii.) Airport Definition: Land Used for the operation of aircraft and associated accessory uses; provided accessory uses are incidental to the airport activity. Samples: Airport land uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: e Landing strips/runways • Airplane hangers • Helipads • Air- traffic control facilities • Boarding terminals iv.) Utility Definition: An area or strip of land either public or private, occupied by a power plant or substation, electric transmission line, oil or gas pipeline, water tower, municipal well, reservoir, pumping station, water treatment facility, communications tower, or similar use. Samples: Utility uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: • Comm Ld & Impro Own by Pub Uti Th Rail • K Vacant 1.) Developed Definition: Land not currently used for any defined purpose that may or may not contain buildings or other structures Samples: Vacant land uses would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: • Agricultural, Vacant Land • Industrial, Vacant Land • Commercial, Vacant Land • Apartment, Vacant Land • Residential, Vacant Land, Lot • Vacant Land L. Open Water Definition: Permanently flooded open water not including wetlands, or periodically flooded areas. Samples: Open Water would typically include any of the following that meet the previously defined criteria: ▪ Lakes • Rivers • Streams (not intermittent) • Ponds (permanently flooded) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 1, 1998 Mounds Xtew City Hall 2401 Highway 10, M nds, view, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson 2. Roll Call air erson:: 7:00 p.m. Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Conussioners' 9:00 p.m.), Miller, Obert, and Stevenson ar? "•' 01 5 H i Absent: Planning Associate Ericson • used ° Also present: Community Develpment Director J Council Liaison Koopmeine :.tdeparted a X9.15 p. 3. Citizens' Requests and e, re no cit 4. Ap omment o E Items ests or cti iiy inute0. Motion/Sec C s re rY]°.1s5 on me on the Agenda E�.d. ousing Inspector Dorgan, and Recorder Dave Hix. Brooks (departed at r is for items not on the agenda. , 1998 (special) saemle)Wenson to approve the Mounds View Planning r mutes (special) of May 20, 1998, as amended. 1 its/Information Items Nays m 0 Vbka.i9\1„,(P r in Discussion Regarding Comprehensive Guide Plan - Housing Element - Presented by Mounds View Housing Inspector Steve Dorgan Steve Dorgan gave his report as follows: Staff had prepared a report which gave overviews of three separate sets of housing Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting July 1, 1998 Page 2 policies adopted by the City over the last 20 years. This information will be combined with the suggestions that the Metropolitan Council has given the City in regards to housing elements that it wishes to see in the current Comprehensive Plan 1.J ate. Four areas of existing policy were listed for discussion: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan adopted ,i49 p p �: �� 2. Focus 2000 Project Housing GoaIs 'f995 3. Liveable Communities Housing A` on Plan 1096 4. Current Housing Statistics :�Yy Ie Existing Comprehensive Guide Plan Ho_it�;. >_.. -. Dorgan reviewed the goals included in the 1979,1an. rgals and Action Plan - 1979 Brasaemle suggested updating the goals',Jf '90s, such as sustainable development ihat are relevant to the Dorgan continued by reviewing t e action p n front 79 Comprehensive Guide Plan process which included discusroon of ho,:ing rehabilitation and redevelopment, innovative .1. housing, and housing assistP'°`: He City of Moud Dick - ;,e'e\re; dewed f •ey p i i ted in '- re �� ew Focu 111 - 1 ect Housing Goals - 1995 °using golds included in the Mounds View Focus 2000 ounds VewLivable Communities Housing Action Plan - 1996 rgan summarized the 996 Livable Communities Housing Action Plan which was approved by the 40 • the Metropolitan Council. According to Metropolitan Council statistics available?at this time, Mounds View was well within the range of providing affordable housr g. Mounds View's larger apartment complexes fall below the fair market rents publishe ' iy the Department of Housing and Urban Development. an reviewed various housing assistance programs, housing developments in Mounds iew =housing maintenance, rehabilitation, and redevelopment programs, local initiatives, and goals and policies for future life cycle needs. W. City of Mounds View Current Housing Statistics Dorgan reviewed a spread sheet and charts that showed: Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting July 1, 1998 Page 3 1. Total number and percent of dwelling units by type 2. Value of owner occupied units and rent ranges of rental units a. pride of ownership is an important component of Chairperson Peterson suggested that the chart show.,, edia presented to the Metropolitan Council for their re 3. Number and type of publicly subsidized laising a. 228 total units (15 percent of the 0 a ues ue when it is 'al units (1,472) in e ti 4. Households by current age of householde 5. Population by Age Group • 6. Permitted densities for residenteve1 a. single-family - 0 tolitits per cr 3 b. multifamily - 4 ±:taints per a 'fie 7. Land potentially av a. review of It rods ential des Iopment and/or redevelopment e 2�. consern§ e left' s if a sit ssion that alI lots in the City that could be omprehensive Guide Plan and considered on an ;issue comes about. It was t iraustrial or buSines `density residents of the' Mtnission to consi le e TTerrace could be The other two trai medium density trailer Age of reguidin manufactured home park guided rom me sum density trailer park to r parks could b eguide to medium park. ent housing stock of need for housing rehabilitation: number and percent of units needing hK�, abilitation ( if available) VAK 10. Current Housing Vacancy rates A. Single- family homes a. nine listings active, no vacant units B. Multiple - family homes Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting July 1, 1998 Page 4 a. four condemned units, approximately 1.5 percent vacancy rate V. Comprehensive Guide plan Update Dorgan reviewed the housing related comments from this year. e comm ms held earlier Peterson suggested bringing up the truth- in -housg issue befa e the ` n reinvestigate the possibility of hiring the required ffto .`" orm this dit g It was the consensus of the Commission to include truth -in- housing regulation that would make it a e uea related issues be brought up to code before a he > e could VI. Initiatives That Mounds View its Dorgan summarized the current relate p working on including the renta, tip using home improvement fair, the mprehensive Plan Update a at all health and safety rogram erne 't pr!a Jopke handed out a curr aft of Comprehensive Plan omm Direci owner tw . h as seta as Commission Reports eAold the C m,ssim the theater project is still on hold waiting for the e contract with the general contractor. Building permits will be issued 'h :1 renegotiated and signed. the City is currently A Community Fix -Up Fund, a m and the plan book project. Background Section of the pre q The City Council aped the amended PUD plan for Silverview Estates Senior Cooperative dev 1prnent by Realife of Mounds View Inc. -hzi All members dhie Commission were given copies to review of applications for the open l?ianning z€t y Council authorized staff to enter into an option to purchase and request RFPs on the vacant Midland Videen property. 7. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting There being no further business before the Planning Commission Special Meeting, mission position. Mound View Planning Commission Special Meeting July 1, 1998 Page 5 Chairperson Peterson adjou rnedtemetina« 9:30 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned t the Ag a Session Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director 4 tiar � ! PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Subject: Update on Overton Foyer Addition 2824 Woodale Drive Planning Case No. 524 -98 Date: July 10, 1998 Discussion: The City has recently receive a complaint about the appearance of the foyer addition to the Overton residence at 2824 Woodale Drive. The complainant expressed disappointment that the City would approve an addition that is so out of character with the home and immediate neighborhood. The caller also complained about a house expansion on Knollwood Drive, one block north of the Overton Property. (Coincidently, the same builder is responsible for both additions.) Staff reviewed the plans submitted to the City to verify that the construction was according to the approved plans, which apparently is the case. It was explained to the caller that the Planning Commission, in its variance approval, were approving only a reduced front -yard setback. The Commission, however, does not review the architectural appearance or design of the proposed addition - -style and character are subjective criteria not usually taken into consideration. In the case of a CUP, the Commission and Council do have the ability to legislate appearance, in that one of the criteria used for granting a CUP is that the structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The caller expressed a desire to have the Planning Commissioners drive by the property at 2824 Woodale drive to observe first -hand the approved "foyer" addition. Staff has driven by the under - construction addition, and while it does not appear to be keeping with the character of the home, we are reserving final judgement until the project is completed. Even so, after the fact, the Commission's and staffs opinion regarding the addition is immaterial except to serve as a reminder and basis for future planning cases. Recommendation: Individually drive by the Overton property at 2824 Woodale Road and observe the construction in progress so that this item may be further discussed at the meeting on July 15, 1998. A a48,_ James Ericson, Planning Associate MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1998 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes: a. July 1, 1998 (Regular) 5. Planning Case No. 531 -98 Property Involved: 2185 Pinewood Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 554 -98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Accessory Building Applicant: Tammy Bellamy 6. Planning Case No. 532 -98 Property Involved: 2400 County Road J Consideration of Resolution No. 555 -98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Development Review Request Applicant: Sysco Foods 7. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Discussion Regarding Comprehensive Plan b. Discussion Regarding Recommendation to Expand Planning Commission to Nine Members c. Update Regarding Mermaid Bowling Center Expansion 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717 -4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** (Immediately Following Special Meeting) AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. July 15, 1998 (Regular) 2. Discussion of Possible Variance Request for a Reduced Parking Lot Setback for Mermaid (Representatives from Mermaid, Herbst & Sons and Perkins Restaurant to be Present) 3. Interview of Candidates for Planning Commission Vacancy 4. Meeting Adjournment NA DA TAIGROUPSICOMDEVIPLANCOMMTCAGE +#DAWS- 19- 98.AGN REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: August 19, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case Noe: 531 -98 Request: Conditional Use Permit for a 1,008 sf Oversized Garage Petitioner: Tammy Bellamy Location: 2185 Pinewood Drive PIN Noe 05- 30 -23 -43 -0032 Zoning/Land Use: R -1, Single Family Residential Applicable Regulations: 1104.01, Subd, 4: Accessory buildings detached from principal building shall have a setback of 5 feet. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in the front yard. 1106, 03. Subd. 1 d: No garage shall exceed 864 square feet except by CUP. 1 106.03. Subd. 1 h: The combined square footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 25% of the rear yard. 1 106.04. Subd.6: The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed 1,264 square feet; if the garage square footage is greater than 1,000 square feet, no other accessory building shall be allowed, the garage width cannot exceed 35 feet nor allow for more than three vehicle access. Attachments: Background: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plans Structure Map 2185 Pinewood Drive is located at the corner of Pinewood Drive and Quincy Street, just north of County Road 1. The property is approximately 16,000 square feet. Presently there is a small, one -story residence and a detached single -car garage on the corner lot. The applicant had requested a similar CUP in 1997, but chose to withdraw her request before action was taken by the City Council. The current request is for a 1,008 square foot detached garage, 24 feet by 42 feet, to be located 13 feet from the house and 13 feet from the west property line. The garage would be set back further on the property than the house. Recently the City Council adopted Ordinance 620 which changed some of the dimension requirements pertaining to garages. Because this ordinance does not go into effect until September 4, 1998, this application will be judged based on the existing Code. Bellamy CUP Request 2185 Pinewood Drive August 19, 1998 Page 2 Dimensional Requirements: Required Provided Met/Not Met Garage Setbacks (Front) 70 feet 80 feet Met (Side) 5 feet 13 feet Met (Rear) 5 feet 38 feet Met Percent of Rear Yard* < 25% 15% Met Garage Width 5 35 feet 22 feet Met Area of all Accessory Buildings: 5 1,264 Sq. ft. 1,008 Sq. ft. Met Analysis: At past Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the issue of building a proportional relationship requirement between a house and garage has been discussed. Those discussions led to the adopting of Ordinance 620, which in this case, would not impact the applicant's request. While the proposed garage is significantly larger than the house (1,008 sf for the garage compared to only 682 for the house), under either set of guidelines, a CUP would be required. The rear yard is large enough to meet the 20% rear yard coverage limitation. The question remains, however, "is the proposed garage too large for he site and the home ?" To balance this concern, the advantages of such a garage, such as creating adequate storage space for the resident's vehicles and yard appliances, need to be considered. Because of privacy fencing used by the applicant and the adjoining neighbor, the full effect of the garage would be shielded from either street view. As presented, the proposal meets all of the criteria imposed by the Code, as addressed in the dimensional requirements above. Staff feels, in this instance, that the benefits of such a garage may outweigh any disadvantages. The driveway to the current garage is about 80 feet long and unpaved. The applicant has shown on the "proposed" site plan to be improving the driveway with concrete. If this CUP request is recommended for approval, one requirement shall be that the driveway be improved with a permanent surface within three months of taking out the building permit for the garage. An additional requirement imposed by approving this CUP would be to further screen the proposed garage by means of erecting a privacy fence parallel to Pinewood Drive between the garage and the property line to the west. Adverse Effects Of the criteria listed in Section 1125.01, Sub. 3 for granting conditional use permits, the proposal appears to satisfy the requirements with the possible exception of two: Bellamy CUP Request 2185 Pinewood Drive August 19, 1998 Page 3 (2) "The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value..." (3) "The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties." Depending upon one's interpretation of the request in terms of the "intensity" of the proposed garage in comparison to the existing home and neighboring homes, the proposal may be in conflict with the two above -noted criteria. Staffs concern with this proposal is the size of the garage (1,008 sf) in comparison to the house (682 sf) The width of the garage from the street view, however, is similar to the house. The bulk of the garage will not be seen from the street. It is desirable from a community perspective to have property owners improve their properties with garages since the properties are then usually kept in better order. Recommendation: Direct staffto prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council approval or denial of this Conditional Use Permit application, requested by Tammy Bellamy, 2185 Pinewood Drive. N:IDATAI GROUPS ICOMDEV∎D EVCAS ES1531- 98\2185 PINE.PC 1 .117:r7.1P rms COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55117 612-717-407 612-7843462 - FA:N. Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant Addres& - - - --9;1(Ne6skazi Telephone ?t, Fax - Inteirest in Property (check appropriate box) . -1 ": • -- ' . : 43' • Owner of ProPertr.7r P :4:7.-1 Contract for Deed Owner • Lessee, Operator, Manager C Agreement to Purchase :- O Other (explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal = 13-(90_q--", • Property Iclentukatton it • - c•-,03r*•:i # of Acres Current Zoning 1 Type of Application • - Comprehensive Ilan Amendment _ S250 • 0 Rezoning O Major Subdivision O Minor Subdivision • Planned Unit Development (PUD) _ • • • $250/acre; min S250 max S1500 S250 -1-S250 deposit* S200 Refer to rezoning fees O PUD Amendment S350 • '7.4Af Conditional Use Permit . R-1, R others S250 . - _ _ O Variance , -- • . • ; R-1, R- 100 all others S250 • Code Appeal O Develop Review/Site Plan . . SUS/acre; min $125 max $750 O . .Wetland Alteration Permit . R4R2Sj50.l1th$2ao O „Wetland Buffer , : .. R-1, R-2 S25:. allothers_S1 op O - Floodpiain Permit — S200 O - Other - • *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable • incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit =aunt. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MI Develo meet A lication Pa e2 Present Use of Property O Undeveloped/Vacant Single Family Dwelling O Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi- family Dwelling • Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment • Other (explain) Property Classification 0 Abstract Description of Proposal ❑ Ton-ens .. .._. . -.. - r::•.:•�.,�i- :5..1i: :.'i +'ji BY MY (OUR) SIGNATUREE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY' KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed)Q,r,� Signature ofProperty Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/ anted Address of Owner _�1�5sr�t �ra` Phone Number of Owner ( �' uw r,n _ ': •6 Z . 'i lot fi.:a�... F::+YsrdE,� tl-n >L�i .F..s -_ *** * * ** * *** *gyp * * ** ** * ** *** ****M** * * * *>rsM** **** ** ** ** * * * * * ** ** ** * *o!>M ****** *** * ** oR*** *** * * ** * **oF>p *** Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Planning Case No. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 7 -10 - Fees Paid :.. Application: A 75 - Park Dedication: Deposits: Other. Total: NAD ATA IGROUPSICOMDEVIFOR NiSZEVAPP.FOR 53( -8L g 60-dav Limit • :. Account Assigner to: I20 -day limit Check # • : - Receipt # 973 9 339 • 1198 COLONIAL VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK N 0 N 1 DR 5618 5612 5606 5600 5562 5556 5559 5544 5538 5532 5526 5520 CR N N Nr M CQ -"" 0 Cn 0 0) cN a M OAKWOOD Q g g O ev N N 2 N N PARK. I__ 5590 C d N HN p (m '4 N. PF NS O 0) 0) N a h N L4 N N N N cr DR N. N to N : N; 4 N rn C4 Y] ^ N N .® N ^ N ^ tV a C`4 01 0 N ca a N m a N CO a N N N (C3 h h CI M N as in r. �- in r. ^ N. 0 (0 r'? t'] N 0 09 0) CO N h 4 N N N N c N N N N N 04 (04 C4 C4 5511 5503 5493 q 5 PINEWOOD SCHOOL 5500 5401 ON 5480 5474 5468 5462 5454 54-46 5440 5479 5473 5467 5463 5455 5447 5434 5426 5420 5441 5433 5425 5421 h 0) N N N BELLE 5414 5415 5405 5405 co uz N a ui to h N N CD N t N DRIVE INTERSTATE 35W Zoning Map Applicant: Location: Planning Case 532 ®98 Tammy Bellamy 2185 Pinewood Drive NO` Design Works (R), Knox Lum'`,r, # 212, Phone # 483 -5411 Thu Jul 09 16:48:59 1998 ❑ The materials in this garage will cost 53867.96 This Price does not Plan ID: CQ6282 Drawing: 3- Dimensional View * Ask For A Construction Detail Sheet Before You Begin Your Project • ieslgn works (R), Knox Lum rhu Jul 09 16:48:59 1998 ?Ian ID: CQ6282 Drawing: Plan View 24' -r„ # 212, Phone # 483-5411 CLLC .aa . ee, 171 tg Li5Q-- jo 17'1-1 _/ { r 010 la ,1 prc p 05E0 -y(. c D.r, a., ag) (1) ea mama Law a) a) Lo ti ■ 1 Terrace Drive leagg Aou!nO Pinewood Drive 0 0 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: August 19, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 532-98 Request: Development Review Applicant: Adolfson and Peterson Construction and Setter, Leach & Lindstrom for SYSCO FOODS Location: 2400 County Road J PIN Nos.: 05- 30 -23 -22 -0005 Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Sysco Addition Zoning/Land Use: PUD / Existing Food Service and Distribution Facility Applicable Regulations: • Development Review: Section 1006.06 requires that all commercial and industrial development within the City be subject to review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. • Setbacks: Section 1104.01 establishes the principal building and parking lot setbacks. These will be addressed in the analysis section of this report. Summary: The applicant, Adolfson & Peterson, representing Sysco Foods, has applied for a development review to expand their existing facility located at 2400 County Road J. The expansion will add approximately 106,000 square feet of space to the building and 152,500 square feet of parking area for trucks and cars. The additions to the building will increase freezer space by 43,500 sf, cooler space by 25,500 sf, dry goods space by 16,100 sf and then an additional 21,500 sf for offices. Other facets of this expansion include an expansion of the access driveway leading back to rear of the building, relocation of the will -call area, construction of additional auto parking at the northeast corner of the site and additional truck parking along the west side of the property. SYSCO Foods Expansion Planning Case 532 -98 August 19, 1998 Page 2 Discussion: Drainage and Soil Suitability At the time this report was written, staff had not yet received a copy of the drainage plan prepared for the Sysco site. It is our understanding, however, that when the development was constructed in 1988, the ponding was sized to accommodate the maximum planned buildout. I verified that this was the case with SEH and also with Rice Creek Watershed District, who indicated that because of revised standards and other drainage requirements, a new watershed district permit would need to be obtained. Staff has not yet received a copy of the drainage plan, although we have received a copy of the drainage calculations, which were sent to the City Engineer for review. With regard to soil suitability, it is staffs understanding that the soils are reasonably suited for the planned expansion, however the applicant will be providing information to the City to supporty this. Setbacks: The plans provided to staff, date stamped 8/14/98, do not explicitly show setbacks and thus have been estimated by staff. Because of this, we have requested a confirmation of all setback distances from the applicant and will report to the Planning Commission if they are different from our estimates. The current conditions plan show the front setback for the Sysco facility to be 30 feet, while the setback for parking lot appears to be zero feet. It is proposed that the parking lot expansion will maintain the same zero setback. The existing setback for the access drive along the east side of the property begins at 50 feet, then narrows to a zero setback, gradually increasing to 25 feet before ending at approximately 18 feet. The proposal shows the access drive extending the zero setback for approximately 300 feet. The truck parking at the rear of the property currently ranges from 15 to 20 feet, which is shown to be decreased by 10 feet. The new truck parking along the western edge is shown with a 10 foot setback. Staff is concerned about the reduced and zero setbacks present in the proposed expansion plans. The City may, however, allow these setbacks in conjunction with the development plan because of Sysco's PUD zoning status, which allows for deviations from the City's setback requirements. It appears from the plans that the zero setback status is a present condition which, by virtue of its existence, has received City approval in the past. The reduced setback toward the rear of the property are less of a concern, as this area borders Highway 118 and is shielded from view by the noise barricades. The reduced setback along the eastern edge of the property is of a concern not because of the adjacent property owner, but rather because of the possible environmental impact to the wetlands. To protect against possible degradation of the wetlands, staff would recommend that the access drive maintain a minimum ten foot setback along the property's entire eastern edge, This would result in the drive aisle being narrowed to forty feet in one area unless it could be shifted to the west a compensating distance. SYSCO Foods Expansion Planning Case 532-98 August 19, 1998 Page 3 Elimination of Open Space: Staff has examined the original PUD documentation, site plans and resolutions in an effort to determine what development restraints, covenants or restrictions might apply to the present expansion. With the exception of car dealerships and multiple - family housing, there are no provisions within the Code that require a development to have a certain amount of greenspace. The City Code, in Section 1120,02, Subdivision 3, states only that a PUD provide a "sufficient" amount of open space. The proposal presented by Sysco utilizes most of the remaining greenspace on the site, with the balance set aside as future expansion area. The site plans also show that Lot 1, Block 1, of the Sysco Addition, the triangular area west of the Sysco development, is slated for future parking. Parking and Access: There are approximately 362 parking stalls present on the Sysco property which had been approved for the site with its initial development and expansion in 1995. The current proposal would bring this total up to 444. Truck parking will also increase by 53 slots, bringing the truck capacity up to 104 stalls. The access drive servicing the facility is proposed to be widened to 50 feet, which will better accommodate two -way truck traffic. The access is currently 50 feet wide where it intersects with County Road .1, but narrows to only 25 feet along the east side of the property. Other Issues: Landscaping: The applicant does not intend to provide any landscaping with this project, other than the landscaping that will be displaced as a result of the proposed expansion, which will be relocated and/or replaced. Public Safety: While not a component of this project, the intersection at Xylite Street and County Road J (with the Sysco access being the fourth leg of the intersection) will be improved with a full- movement traffic signal. The City of Mounds View and Sysco are sharing in the cost of this improvement with the City of Blaine. Utilities: The expansion areas will not generate a need for any additional utilities. SYSCO Foods Expansion Planning Case 532 -98 August 19, 1998 Page 4 Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 555 -98, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of a development review for the Sysco Foods operation located at 2400 County Road J, with stipulations as noted and amendments as needed. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:I DATA1GROUPS ICOMDEVIDEVCASES1532- 981532 -98. PC i .1:L7r 441 LJ ag'!IV °Partnea��@ Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address CONDI-UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2,401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612 - 717 -4020 612 -784 -3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Adolfson & Peterson Construction ...... ........ ....................... 6701 West 23rd Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 Telephone ( 612) 544 -1561 Fax (612) 525 -2333 Interest in Property (check appropriate. box) O Owner of Property -- Cl _' • - Contract for Deed Owner _. O Lessee, Operator, Manager ' a - ' Agreement to Purchase gi Other(explain) esian Build Contractor for ansions and Renovations Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the fling of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location . 2400 County Road J, Mounds View Legal Description -: . N 1 /2 , NW 1/4 of Section 5, T30, R23 Property Identification # (PIN #) . 05302322005 �' ----- _ _ #offAcres 23.933 . - . Current Zoning Planned Unit Development Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Rezoning o Major Subdivision O Minor Subdivision ▪ Planned Unit Development (PUD) a PUD Amendment O Conditional Use Permit ▪ Variance Code Appeal Develop Review /Site PIan Wetland Alteration Permit t] Wetland Buffer Permit a Floodpiain Permit n Other 5250 3250 /acre; min S250 max S1500 6250 + S250 deposit* S200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R -1, R -2 $75; all others $250 R°1, R -2 3100 all others 5250 3100 S125/acre; min S125 max S750 R-1, R -2 S150; all others 5200 R -I, R-.2 S25; all others $100 S200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and stair or consultant time spent in the 'review, iesearch or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shah be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days atter consideration of the application is completed Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN Deevelo meet A lication Pa e ? Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi - family Dwelling Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification lit Abstract ❑ Torrens Description of Proposal Expansions (Cooler, Freezer, Cold Dock, Dry Warehouse with dock, Office S ace and Parkin ..yeas and renovations Office Area and D Warehouse for a food service distribution facility. Site improvements include new automobile arkini 84 cars d. t anruck arki.n 54 trucks aloe with wi.denin exi.stin truck Zane to facilitate 2®wa traffice • BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Adolfson` -& Peterson Construction Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Sysco Food Services of Minnesota, Inc . Address of Owner ends View, Minnesota 55112 Phone Number of Owner (612) 537 -7516 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal 7 ---3/ -9c4( Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. 3 ^" 60-day Limit 120 -day limit Fees Paid: Application: 0 ?50 Park Dedication: _ Deposits: Other: Total: ,` 1: 1DATA1QROt3PS \COMDEV1FORMS\DEVAPP.FO R Account # Check # /0d -24/1 5 / 1'7 7 • Receipt # .:s996�d 1/98 0 N PUD SYSCO FOODS 8 BRIDGES 450 TECH. PARK 8400 ARDAN PARK 0 uz N N N N u7 N u7 N 8230 8224 8212 8206 8200 8150 8140 8132 Ln N N co co N N tf} P4 N 819 Q 8283 8271 8247 8239 8225 8217 8205 8290 GOLF COURSE ... 1=: om �'"*►..�,,�,� is tut IF= II S r‘r.timimia_ .11M 7/ /E- 8145 ._. _ . 8135 i� -6130 8121 IMRE Bin Emu I N 8101 1 c4 8085 <! an71 00 » LAPORT MIME ROAD DR N N rrl N ';:41 c N w D 0 1p Zoning Map Applicant: Location: Planning Case 532-98 SYSCO Foods 2400 County Road J MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 555-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE SYSCO FOODS FACILITY, 2400 COUNTY ROAD J; PLANNING CASE NO. 532 -98 WHEREAS, Sysco Foods has requested City approval to expand its facility at 2400 County Road J, property zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2, SYSCO Addition WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application, dated 3/5/98 2. Zoning and Location Map 4. Site Plans, dated July 20 and August 14, 1998 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plans dated 7/20/98 and 8/14/98 conform to the requirements of Chapter 1120, Planned Unit Developments District, with revisions as noted in the stipulations; and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the proposed drainage plans and find them in conformance to watershed and local water management plan requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of a development review for Sysco Foods to expand their food distribution and warehouse facility as shown on site plans dated 7/20/98 and 8/14/98 subject to the following stipulations: 1. The site plans shall be revised to show all building dimensions; all building, parking lot and driveway setbacks; and revised to show a ten -foot setback for the access drive along the property's eastern border. 2 Before any permits are issued for this development, the applicant shall obtain a Rice Creek Watershed District permit and enter into a development agreement with the City. Planning Commission Resolution 555 -98 Sysco Foods Expansion August 19, 1998 Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 19th day of August, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N :l .DATA \GROUPS\C OMDE V1DE VCASES1532 -9815 5 5- 98PC.RES PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Subject: Mermaid Parking Lot Problems Date: Meeting of August 19, 1998 Last week, it came to staff's attention that the plans approved for the Mermaids bowling expansion had some errors. There appears to be a seven -foot descrepancy between what the plans show and what is actually out there with regard to building location and the north property line. The result of this is that there is not enough room for the parking lot as it was shown on th plans to be built. One full row of parking will fit with a drive aisle, but not two. Before the expansion, there were 515 parking spaces on the property. After the expansion, a total of 505 spaces would be available, assuming that all of the spaces could be built. Because of the measurement error, only 25 of the 38 spaces north of the building can be built, using the north property line for parallel parking and 90 degree parking adjacent to the building. While this is a net reduction of another 13 spaces, the final total of parking provided would still be more than what is required. (Attached is the second page from the Council staff report which shows the parking requirements for the site.) The applicant is proposing to expand the parking north of the building so that a full two rows with a drive aisle between them can be constructed, which requires a minimum 60 feet, curb to curb, not considering any setbacks. What is available, from sidewalk to property line, is 55 feet at the building's northeast corner, increasing to 64 feet at the northwest corner. The applicant, on the attached lot survey and parking proposal, is to encroach five feet beyond the property line into the Perkins property. I addition, the applicant proposes to open up a secondary access to the Perkins site, promoting a safer traffic circulation between the two properties and also to encourage a shared parking arrangement between the two uses. A formal application has not yet been made; the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the options and give direction to staff as well as the applicant as to how to proceed. Staff will present it's prefered course of action at the meeting. James Ericson, Planning Associate C:\OFFICEIW PW rNNW PDOCSVERICSOMMERMAID. MEM l 0 c a LOCATION SURVEY For: The MERMAID of .. . Property Line and adjoining parking between The Mermaid and Perkins in Mounds View, Minnesota •PERKINS -92.0 1 tri 1 1 ,.North Lot Line 1 / EXISTING CONCRETE CURB LOT • AKKING 1 Scale 1". 60' hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota E. G. RUD & SONS, INC Date 8-1° -96 Registration 9 491 LS Drw• 6 8A0 E. G. RUE, 4 eoN3, NC LANTZ, SURVEYORS 9180 LExINUTON AVE. NO. CIRCLE PINES, MINNESOTA EE014 -3625 TEL. 786 -66E6 Mermaid Entertainment Center Manning Case 52398 May 11, 1998 Page 2 Parking Lot Setbacks Front (Highway 10): Front (County H): • Side (Perkins): • Side (Business Park): Drainage: 30 feet 30 feet 10 feet 10 feet 18 feet 75 feet 0 feet 0 feet No Yes No No The impervious surface on this site takes up nearly 100 percent of the area. The proposed addition adds 7,226 square feet of building area to the site, yet replaces an equal amount of parking area. The net effect is that no additional run -off is expected as a result of this development. Even so, the Rice Creek Watershed District will need to review this development proposal and issue a watershed permit before construction can begin. arkin With the additional eight bowling lanes, the parking ratios and counts as required in the City Code, Section 1121.13 for bowling alleys and the other on -sites uses would be as follows: Bowling Alleys: Dining and Lounge: Kitchen area: Office: 5 spaces per alley 1 space per 40 s.f. 1 space per 80 s.f. 3 spaces plus 1 per 175 s.f 32 lanes = 160 spaces 12,228 s.f = 306 spaces 516 s.f. = 7 spaces 930 s.f. = 9 spaces Total required: 482 spaces Staff counted the stalls present on the site and came up with a total of 515 spaces, 18 of which are being used temporaril for the outdoor volt ball court. Thus at resent the site is ve arked according to the Code requirements. With the ro osed anion there would be 505 s aces the site, a net reduction of ten spaces. _ This fiaure is still more than what would be re aired with thee i t additional lanes. The plan, however, shows the stalls at 9 foot by 18 foot dimensions, instead of the Code - required 9 by 20 foot dimension. The shorter, 9 by 18 parking stalls have been allowed only by the City for perimeter parking where an overhang of the car into greenspace may occur. The Planning Commission and Staff concurred that the sub - standard stalls (9 by 18 feet) would be acceptable so as to be consistent with those stall preexisting. The other issue with regard to the parking as shown on the site plan is the reduced setback from the north and west property lines. The parking areas are shown to be at the property line instead of set back by the required 10 feet. The existing parking lot setback along the western property line is five feet. If the parking were to be constructed according to the plans provided, as much as two feet of some vehicles would be extending into the neighboring property. Staff would recommend that the site plan be redrawn to (1) show 45 degree angled parking around the proposed addition which would allow for the continuation of the five -foot parking lot r • -r 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 1. Call to Order 2401 Highway 10, Special Meeting July 15, 1998 Mounds s City Hall nds ew, MN 55112 Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View Planningmmissio�ecial; g;.,or 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commission " Brasa� � s (departed at 8:54 p.m.), Miller, Obert, and Stevenson. Members absent: Council Liaison Koopme Also present: Community Developmen. 'irector Development Coordinator Kevin C Housi:. Hix. 3. Cit. s' Requests There 4. Appro A. J B. lanner Ericson; Economic teve Dorgan; and Recorder Dave of On The Agenda mments on items not on the agenda. saemle /Stevenson to approve the Planning Commission June 3, 1998 98(Special) Meeting Minutes as amended. Nays ®0 5. Staff Reports/Information Items A. Discussion Regarding Comprehensive Guide Plane Land Use Element PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1998 All Planning Commission Members acknowledged receipt of the City's current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map. Page 2 Jopke told the Commission the Maps' color designations had bee ple ted by the I® 35W Corridor Coalition in an attempt to standardize 1. d use d`'''='across the corridor. This process was intended to simplify the ilea: uni s between all of the communities that are members of the "Coaliti . e sugg �� City of Mounds View return to its original approach of , gratings . erti1q':, to instead of density, as had been done on the Map � 4 are t ommissio The Land Use Map and the Zoning Map were co bring out any inconsistencies that exist between t perspective, it was determined that the Highwa most attention and analysis as to how the av ne another in an attempt to From a land use ea that needs the 'dor could be used. Jopke asked the Commission to cons $ ,Y �. = . s to 1. use along the Highway p `�:e�» � g g Y 10 corridor: 1. Should the land be deb; 2. Should the land be ith o$. case -bv:_ se basis? Obe stated it was pr ` hat Hig expre co ,01 e, he ensus o ould be eeling Peters ext at participated in the community forum main area of commercial development. The t a... ounty Road I should not be developed for t the development of County Road I depended to a large communities of Shoreview, Blaine, and Arden Hills had their cities. Future development in the cities could impact oad I as a through road to their cities. hat the planning that is taking place by the City of Mounds View on the Ian Update is a blueprint for the future. If the Planning Commission esignate the remaining residential properties along Highway 10 or County usiness use, it would not mean that the home owners were being asked to from their homes. The redesignation would only go into affect if and when the property changed ownership, he added. Peterson suggested that the City make a strong effort to change the Zoning Map to reflect the Comprehensive Land Use Map, particularly on the Highway 10 properties which are "grossly out of sync." PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1998 Page 3 Brasaemle expressed concern in regards to the tax implications that the people, whose property is now zoned residential, would be faced with if their zoning was changed to business use. The property tax would be based on a higher valued commer;;°t use rather than a lower valued residential use. Miller suggested safeguarding the current residents corridor. This would allow the City to rezone th development as business or commercial. way 10 e and Peterson suggested establishing a 285 feet plus - e" one on either si y way 10 as the commercial corridor. The corridor wou 10 to the west end of Highway 10, he added. Miller expressed concern in regards to co H2, especially with the resistance that is A lengthy discussion ensued in w proposed 285 foot setback on t east/west length of the high basis of their designation p property next to the Eve High . ay 10 corrido A , Tie desi geste om the east end of Highway riangu ercial d strial, Li g the res Terrac sst 'th B. Pia h of County Road development. Members drew in their ghway 10, going the full prehensive Land Use Map for the ested that the last piece of residential erty needed to be included in the e also recommended that Town's Edge rial/Warehouse, or Mixed -Use PUD. own's Edge Terrace property as HC/IND PUD. The he designation of HC /IND PUD for the Town's Edge Vacancy and Terms (Verbal Report) ff' opke told the C potential Commit discussed. In ' order to giv e list o yin on that City staff had received, and subsequently Iost, a list of on candidates that would be added to the list that had already been of this fact, the selection of a candidate would have to be tabled in y staff the time it needs to locate the missing list and add these names to idates being considered by the City to fill the vacancy on the planning Obert suggested that all applicants that are considered for the vacancy should be interviewed by the Planning Commission, including Liaison Koopmeiners, prior to selection by the Mayor and approval of the selection by City Council. The Commission unanimously agreed with Obert's suggestion. PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1998 Page 4 C. Update on Overton Foyer Expansion at 2824 Woodale Drive Ericson told the Commission that the Overtons had not presented architec the City when they applied for their variance. The applicants ha presentation through their architect and this presentation was t Commission used in making their decision to grant anc the home is taking place, the roof lines that had b • escribed character with the existing home, were not fittin with th house or the neighborhood. plans to ral ion that the t the addition to er and in stir Obert expressed concern that the City's developm didn't stipulate that an addition must fit in with t the existing house. Ericson quoted from Section 1125 of t be material detrimental to the purpos ments for this type of project hborhood or blend in with Variance e variance would not ther • o erty in the same zone." Brasaemle suggested that the P1.° ng Co architectural drawings on vat n appli Ericson quoted from Co deve . • ments and e ut. d stree gle- All pr nsofe e viously gs are p ed must be reviewed by the City." This ental review necessary for the type of project that the he Code to require me before the Commission. al, commercial, and residential s, except developments where public ed and the erection of no more than two ing a` code requirement that ties existing conditions to the t. d verbiage a follows: "Any expansion of an existing facility that has to go through a development review." d: "Politically and historically the City is stuck with letting people do ey want to do, appearancewise." Ericson suggested getting the Council's feedback on the issue. Have them make a judgement as to whether or not the Code language is acceptable or if it needs to be amended to try to solve this type of problem. 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner's Reports PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1998 No reports were considered. 7s Adjournment MOTION /SECOND: Brasaemle/ Obert to adjourn the meeti There being no further business before the Planning Co the meeting at 9:30 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned $`= enda Session) Respectfully submitted, Page 5 Rick Jopke Community Development Director MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 7 :00 P.M. REGULAR VEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO 'i'HE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes: a. July 15, 1998 5. Planning Case No 531 -98 Property Involved: 2185 Pinewood Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 554 -98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Accessory Building Applicant: Tammy Bellamy 6. Planning Case No 533 -98 Property Involved: 5249 Greenfield Avenue Consideration of Resolution No. 556 -98, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk Applicant: Timothy White Planning Case No. 534 -98 Property Involved: 2442 Illlview Road Consideration of Resolution No. 557 -98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage Applicant: David Kramer 8. Consideration of Resolution No. 559 -98, a Resolution Recommending to the City Council Appointment of a New Planning Commission Member 9. Staff Rep ort s/tnformation Items 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 10. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717 -4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** N: IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIPLANCOMMIPCAGENDA11998109 -02- 98.AGN REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: September 2, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 533 -98 Applicant: Timothy White Request: The applicant is requesting a reduced side yard setback to allow for a Sidewalk alongside his garage. Location: 5249 Greenfield Avenue PIN No. 08-30-23-31-0021 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential / single family home Applicable Regulations: Section 1104.01, Subd. 5, regarding encroachments: "Terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features; provided they do riot extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than two feet (2') from any lot line." Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Attachments: Background: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plan Resolution 556 -98 The applicant is requesting a variance from the required two -foot side yard setback established for decks, terraces or sidewalks. He has constructed an sidewalk alongside his garage located at 5249 Greenfield. The new sidewalk, which accesses a shed in the rear yard, replaced a walkway of railroad ties that had been present for twenty years, but had fallen into disrepair. The property alongside the garage slopes down, requiring that the sidewalk be supported by footings. The sidewalk is approximately four feet wide and is within inches of a chain link fence that separates the subject property from the property to the north. In addition to the garage, there is an above- ground pool surrounded by patio and landscaping, all of which is enclosed by a five -foot tall privacy fence. The shed is outside of this fenced -in area. White Variance Planning Case No. 533 -98 September 2, 1998 Page 2 Analysis: For the Planning Commission to grant a variance, it must examine the criteria established in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code, which relates to hardships. Specifically, a variance may only be granted in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the properly since the effective date hereof have had no control. The factors which could be construed as extraordinary relating to this request include the slope of the land laying between the garage and the adjoining property and the fact that the shed is located outside of the enclosed pool area, which takes up a majority of the backyard. The shed faces north, toward the adjoining property. Access to the shed then is gained most conveniently from alongside the north side of the garage. Because of the slope, the sidewalk had to be supported by footings to be level. A gravel walking path, however, would not be subject to a building permit or the setback requirement. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The applicant is faced with two options if a variance is not granted. Either the sidewalk would need to be cut back approximately two feet to meet the setback requirement or it would need to be removed, with access gained by another means, although not necessarily in a different location. The applicant could also reinstall the same type of walkway that had been present prior to the newly - constructed sidewalk. Given this information, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. While the applicant cannot be held responsible for the slope of the land, the variance is requested because he did not obtain a building permit, and consequently installed the walkway structure over the setback. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. White Variance Planning Case No. 533 -98 September 2, 1998 Page 3 The allowed setback for garages within the City is five feet, and many garages are constructed at this setback. Were any property owner to apply for a building permit to build a sidewalk within that five -foot area, they would be denied the permit if the sidewalk encroached closer than two feet to the property line. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Given that the setback is only two feet for a sidewalk, and the fence (presumably) is not on the property line, the variance requested is minimal -- probably one foot to one and a half feet. However, should the setback be enforced, there is no hardship to having a three - foot wide sidewalk. f The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The basis for this Code provision is to promote a separation between properties. Allowing sidewalk within inches of a neighboring property does not fit with the intent of the Code. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Were the variance to be granted, it would not impair any neighboring properties' supply of light or air, it would not create any additional traffic impact nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. There would be no impact to property values. According to the City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. As pointed out in the above responses, a hardship does not exist in this situation. If denied, the applicant can still have a walkway, albeit three feet instead of four. Or, if the applicant would so choose, the area could be leveled with landscape timbers or railroad ties to access the full width between the garage and property line, and install gravel without necessitating a building permit or variance. A variance should not he granted simply because the work has already been completed White Variance Planning Case No. 533 -98 September 2, 1998 Page 4 Recommendation: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 556 -98, a resolution denying a variance for Timothy White of 5249 Greenfield Avenue, to allow for a reduced side yard setback for a deck -like sidewalk. CJ CuiJ Eu'" James Ericson, Planning Associate N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDE VCASES1533- 981VAR- PC.RPT allArt r :erg r :rim '44 ° Pmemcnt`�Q' Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address .ti COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612 -717 -4020 612 -784 -3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form !mo 5- f� lc )171-2 Telephone AZ ` 7 q d '07 - Fax Interest in Property (check appropriate box) Owner of Property a Lessee, Operator, Manager 0 Other (explain) ❑ Contract for Deed Owner O Agreement to Purchase Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal .Address or General Location Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN 4) # of Acres Current Zoning it/3 3' I�br 1fie I I d7- Type of Application ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Rezoning O Major Subdivision O Minor Subdivision O Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment ❑ Conditional Use Permit Variance ❑ Code Appeal O Develop Review /Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit C3 Wetland Buffer Permit O Floodplain Permit ❑ Other 5250 5250 /acre; min 5250 max S1500 S250 -1- S250 deposit* 5200 Refer to rezoning fees S350 R- I, R -2 S75; all others 5250 R-1, R -2 S 100 all others $250 $100 S 125 /acre; min S125 mar $750 R-1, R -2 S150; all others 5200 R -1, R -2 S25; ail others $ I00 S200 Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, ;°search or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount_ Anv portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirz_y (30) days after consideration of the application is completed_ Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN l Develo anent A lication Pa e Present Use of Property • Undeveloped/Vacant O Duplex/Two Family Dwelling O Business/Commercial Establishment • Other (explain) Property Classification X Abstract Descrip on of Proposal .7.-o . Single Family Dwelling O Multi - family Dwelling • Industrial. Establishment Torrens BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PRO VIDED'IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner ( typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Planning Case No. n 112 li,417 / ,,0n- ira /1 Aye, t2zialS. , M7 r,(11.1 FOR ICE USE ONLY SS34 Fees Paid: Application: 1 0 c,o0 Park Dedication: _ Deposits: Other: ...... .. ................. Total: N_1DATA\ GROUPS \COMDEV1FOR,ti1S1DEVAPP.FOR 6O-dav Limit Account # toJ-3 Check # Assigned to: 124 -day limit Receipt # 1/98 5386 538 5380 538 5372 537, 53E 535 WOODALE 5150 5155 EDGEWOOD JR. HIGH SCHOOL Zoning Map Applicant: Location: Planning Case 533 -98 Timothy White 5249 Greenfield Avenue d� Q Edgewood School l :+rrIir m ;i f LIU r17 m[u ,m,1R,1,11 iii! f11 3'11 i'iini113 ry 111111111 1111 :M1111111111 !■1111RI 11 1111111 111 111,1 .71q N13IIi1111f IH/ 11PI, •,, CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW LOCATION MAP Applicant: Timothy White Property: 5249 Greenfield Avenue Request: Variance PLANNING CASE NO. 533 -98 5249 Greenfield Avenue Properties Within 350' L49 Greenfield Avenue M' VII !11 n f•- MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 556 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED TWO -FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SIDEWALK LOCATED AT 5249 GREENFIELD AVENUE; PLANNING CASE NO. 533 -98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Timothy White to permit a sidewalk within the two -foot sideyard setback at his home located at 5249 Greenfield Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential District and is legally described as: Lot 15, Block 2, Eigenheer Second Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: I. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map WHEREAS, the sidewalk for which this variance is requested by the applicant has already been constructed, without a building permit; and, WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the sidewalk could be made narrower to meet the required setback; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do result from the actions of the applicant in that had the applicant requested a building permit, the proposed location of home is necessitated by the lot dimensions and setbacks; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that other owners have been denied permits to construct sidewalks, decks or other like objects within the required two -foot buffer; and, WHEREAS, the variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that the intent of the setback is to preserve and maintain a separation between properties and the structures thereon. Planning Commission Resolution 556 -98 September 2, 1998 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denies the variance request of Timothy White, to allow a sidewalk within the two -foot sideyard setback at 5249 Greenfield Avenue. Adopted this 2nd day of September, 1998 ATTEST SEAL N DATAIGROUPS ICOMDEVIDEVCASES1533- 981555- 9S.R.ES Jerry Peterson, Chairman Rick Jopke, Community Development Director PLANNING COMVIISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Subject: Consideration of Planning Commission Resolution No. 554 -98, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow for an oversized garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive, as requested by Tammy Bellamy. Planning Case No. 531 -98 Date: Meeting of September 2, 1998 Background: At your Iast meeting on August 19, 1998, staff introduced for discussion Planning Case No. 531. 98, the Conditional Use Permit for an over -sized garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive requested by property owner Tanury Bellamy. The request, as the Commission may recall, was to erect a 1,008 square -foot garage replacing the existing single -stall garage present on the site. The Commission debated both sides of this case, concerned about the disproportion of the garage in relation to the house yet recognizing the fact that a larger garage could be used to store vehicles and trailers that currently remain parked on the property outside. While a consensus was not reached on the issue, a majority felt that a resolution should be drafted that recommends to the City Council approval of this CUP request. Please review the attached resolution which recommends approval of the CUP subject to specific stipulations. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 554 -98, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of this CUP request, with stipulations and amendments as deemed necessary. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDE VCASES153 I -9812I 85 PINE. PC2 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 554 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OVERSIZED GARAGE AT 2185 PINEWOOD DRIVE REQUESTED BY TAMMY BELLAMY; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 531.98 WHEREAS, Tammy Bellamy has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,008 square foot garage on property located at 2185 Pinewood Drive; and, WHEREAS, 2185 Pinewood drive is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as followed: Lot 32, Block 8, Pinewood Terrace No 3 Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,264 square feet of garage /accessory building on one lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Location Map d. Existing and Proposed Site Plans e. Area "Building Footprint" Diagram WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the dimensional requirements in Chapter 1104 the Zoning Code for this proposal have been met; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. l.e.: 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2185 Pinewood Drive, low - density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Resolution 554-98 September 2, 1998 Page 2 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area The subject parcel is of the same size or larger th; most of the lots within a two block radius. The building footprint diagram clearly shows that inuv area of the City, there already appears to be garages as large as what is proposed at 2185 Pinewood Drive, some of which larger than their principal structures, again as would be the case at 2185 Pinewood Drive. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed„ There is no reason to believe that a 1,008 square -foot garage would negatively impact the property values of the subject property or those adjacent to it. The case could be made that with ample storage space within the garage, there would be fewer vehicles parked outside and Iess clutter about the property. This type of transformation could result in a positive effect to the neighboring properties. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The applicant has multiple vehicles and owns and operates a race car as a hobby, and has a car h upon which to transport the vehicle. The car hauler does not currently fit into the existin uled thus is kept outside in full view of the neighborhood and vehicles passing by on County existing Road 1. garage, and Constructing the garage as proposed would allow the car hauler and the race car to be stored inside WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the crit for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: erta (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other F facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. Puu`lc (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The construction of an oversized garage will not create a greater impact on existing public facilities e services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. The increase in runoff from the larger structure is not significant and will not affect the draina system or g . (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used and so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties, p The placement of the garage would be such that the bulk of the structure would be hidden from stre view and shielded by mature trees in front and privacy fences on either side. This will provide et adequate screening, and will preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. Planning Commission Resolution 554 -98 September 2, 1998 Page 3 (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for storage of vehicles and other equipment. Having this garage will allow for the property owner to store vehicles, a car hauler and a race car in the garage instead of out in the open. NOW, THEREFORE, EE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval -of the conditional use permit to allow a 1,008 square -foot garage at 2185 Pinewood Drive with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit shall be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. - 2. The garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building appearance with the house. 3. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. 4. No other sheds or accessory buildings shall be allowed on this lot. 5. The driveway leading to the garage shall be improved with a permanent surface material of either concrete or asphalt in conjunction with the construction of the garage. If occupancy of the garage is to occur prior to the driveway's improvement, the applicant shall submit a letter or credit or performance bond in an amount equivalent to the valuation of the work yet to be completed, as estimated by the Community Development Director. 6. Upon the completion of the garage, exterior storage of materials and other items as outlined in Section 607.03 of the Mounds View Nuisance Code shall cease to exist. 7 All vehicles parked at the property shall be parked either upon the driveway's improved surface or within the garage. At not time shall a vehicle be allowed to park upon the grass or off of the improved surface. Any violations of this shall result in the issuance of Ramsey County Court Citations. 8. The applicant shall install a section of privacy fence between the garage and the west property line, tying into the existing privacy fence installed by the adjacent property owner. Planning Commission Resolution 554 -98 September 2, 1998 Page 4 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 2nd day of September, 1998. ATTEST: (SEAL) Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director N: IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDEVCASES153 t- 981554- 98PC.RES MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 559.98 CITY OF MOUNDS 'VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STA'l'E OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT OF TO THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission acts as an advisory commission to the Cit Council on matters that relate to residential, commercial, industrial development and redevelopment, zoning and comprehensive planning; and WHEREAS, the Nanning Commission is composed of seven Mounds View residents; and WHEREAS, Chapter 401.02, Subd. 1, entitled Membership; Terms, states that the Commission "shall consist of not less than seven (7) nor more than nine (9) members from the resident population of Mounds View... "; and WHEREAS, with a recent resignation of one of its members, the Planning Commission currently has only six (6) members; and WHEREAS, the City Council has requested the Planning Commision to review and interview the applicants and to make a recommendation to the City Council based on their review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council appointment of to the Mounds View Planning Commission with the term to expire December 31, Adopted this 2nd day of September, 1998, Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATAIUSERSIBARBEASHP 2EI KEEP- IT\WPDOCSIRESO.PCIVACANCY.WPD MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 7 :00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO TILE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Planning Case No 533 -98 Property Involved: 5249 Greenfield Avenue Consideration of Resolution No. 556-98, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk Applicant: Timothy White 5. Planning Case No. 536 -98 Property Involved: 2200 & 2214 Highway 10 (Mermaid and Perkins, respectively) Consideration of Resolution No. 560 -98, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Joint Use Parking and Access Arrangement between the Businesses and a Zero -Foot Parking Lot Setback.. Applicant: Daniel Hall, representing the Mermaid 6. Planning Case No. 535 -98 Property Involved: 8111 Eastwood Road Consideration of Resolution No 558 -98, a Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow for two Curb -Cuts. Applicant: Micaeh Tobias 7. Staff Reports /Information Items a. Highway 10 Design Theme b. Theater project Update c. Greenfield Ponds Tax Forfeit Properties 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9, Adjournment to Agenda Meeting ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717 -4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * ** (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) AGENDA MEETING AGENDA Review of Minutes: a. August l 9, 1998 (Special) b. September 2, 1998 (Regular) N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDE VI PLANCOMM \PCAGENDA11998109- 16- 98.AGN REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: September 16, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 533 -98 Applicant: Timothy White Request: The applicant is requesting a reduced side yard setback to allow for a Sidewalk alongside his garage. Location: PIN No. Zoning/Land Use: Applicable Regulations: 5249 Greenfield Avenue 08- 30 -23 -31 -0021 R -1, Single Family Residential / single family home Section 1104.01, Subd. 5, regarding encroachments: "Terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features; provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than two feet (2') from any lot line." Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Attachments: Background: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plan Resolution 556 -98 The applicant is requesting a variance from the required two -foot side yard setback established for decks, terraces or sidewalks. He has constructed an sidewalk alongside his garage located at 5249 Greenfield. The new sidewalk, which accesses a shed in the rear yard, replaced a walkway of railroad ties that had been present for twenty years, but had fallen into disrepair. The property alongside the garage slopes down, requiring that the sidewalk be supported by footings. The sidewalk is approximately four feet wide and is within inches of a chain link fence that separates the subject property from the property to the north. In addition to the garage, there is an above- ground pool surrounded by patio and landscaping, all of which is enclosed by a five -foot tall privacy fence. The shed is outside of this fenced -in area. White Variance Planning Case No, 533 -98 September 2, 1998 Page 2 Analysis: At the last Planning Commission meeting, significant discussion was held regarding the merits of this case as well as the interpretation of the language in the Code regarding setbacks. Because of many factors, such as the slope of the land north of the garage, safety considerations and lack of access elsewhere on the lot, the Planning Commission acted to table the request to enable staff to draft both approval and denial versions of the resolution. a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The factors which could be construed as extraordinary relating to this request include the slope of the land laying between the garage and the adjoining property and the fact that the shed is located outside of the enclosed pool area, which takes up a majority of the backyard. The shed faces north, toward the adjoining property. Access to the shed then is gained most conveniently from alongside the north side of the garage. Because of the slope, the sidewalk had to be supported by footings to be level. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. If the variance request was denied, the applicant would either need to remove the sidewalk completely from alongside the shed, which would be a hardship given a sidewalk has existed in this location for more than twenty years, or cut the sidewalk back a foot. In so doing, a gap would be left between the sidewalk and the chain -link fence which is on the applicant's property. It was felt that this gap would pose a considerable safety risk due to the height of the fence and slope of the land. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The slope of the land in this aea is the primary basis for the variance request, a condition over which the applicant has no control. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. White Variance Planning Case No. 533 -98 September 2, 1998 Page 3 The allowed setback for garages within the City is five feet, and many garages are constructed at this setback. All property owners are allowed to use this five -foot area, which many utilize for access to the rear of a property. Thus, granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Given that the setback is only two feet for a sidewalk, and the fence (presumably) is not on the property line, the variance requested is minimal -- probably one foot to one and a half feet. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. Because driveways are allowed to within one foot of a property line (with the permission of the adjacent property owner) it can be reasonably expected that a sidewalk should be subjected to a similar setback. Granting a variance to allow this would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Code. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. If the variance were to be granted, it would not impair any neighboring properties' supply of light or air, it would not create any additional traffic impact nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. There would be no impact to property values. According to the City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. As pointed out in the above responses, a hardship can be shown to exist, which would allow for the granting of a variance. White Variance Planning Case No. 533 -98 September 2, 1998 Page 4 Recommendation: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 556 -98, a resolution approving a variance for Timothy White of 5249 Greenfield Avenue, to allow for a reduced side yard setback for a deck -like sidewalk. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:IDATA\GROUPSICOMDEVIDE VCASES1533- 981VAR- PC2.RPT CTS Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address COMIVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612 - 717 -4020 612 -784 -3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form / p W i/y . 1 i. e4 er n c �� r�,'. /W /V- S s') / 2 . Interest in Property (check appropriate box) X Owner of Property O Lessee, Operator, Manager o Other (explain) Telephone //), 2s 7. 7 Fax O Contract for Deed Owner O Agreement to Purchase Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of'permission from the owner giving consent to the filling of this application- The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted, Property Description/Proposal ��g '�� J, Address or General Location L tPeF7 g4 s /fir We..11 Legal Description gi'vmheek- 5eeeol lezt-tri ,Mt 4-- :2 .L Property Identification #(PIN Q . SO ,23 31 e7D� 1 I # of Acres Current Zoning Type of Application 0 a a 0 Q Q Comprehensive PIan Amendment Rezoning Major Subdivision Minor Subdivision Planned Unit Development (PUD) PUD Amendment Conditional Use Permit Variance Code Appeal Develop Review/Site Plan Wetland Alteration Permit Wetland Buffer Permit Floodplain Permit Other S250 $250 /acre; min $250 max S1 500 S250 -- $250 deposit* S200 Refer to rezoning fees S350 R-1, R -2 $75; all others $250 R- I. R -2 5100 all others $250 $100 $ 125 /acre, min $125 max $750 R -1, R -2 S l 50; all others 5200 R -1, R -2 $25; all others S100 S200 Akdea7 t4 'I1- Seagoar Xi/ h4h7e ;3. Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time_spent in the review, search or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable - .. . incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refisnded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration of the application is completed ' Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN Develo ment A hcation Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant o Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment O Other (explain) Property Classification Descrip on of Proposal Single Family Dwelling ❑ Multi - family Dwelling O Industrial Establishment ❑ Torrens Pa :e2 BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED'IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. f l (!/v'7 ? L f4 "/ ' 7..// Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner yi Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Planning Case No. a cv ! ////7e 44 );QRICE USE ONLY 531-4111,1$ 60-day Limit Assigned to: 12O -day limit Fees Paid: Account # Check # Receipt # Application: l 06.00 p O.3 3 "771r-) Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: N: 1IDATA \GROUPS\COMDEVIFOR4ISIBEVAPP ,FOR 1/98 PF CITY HALL 5394 539 5380 5372 &le6 5381 5373 5367 R-2 0 Q 529 5287 z z 0 U 53e 535 532 N C4 N co N N N 5260 5297 5287 5277 0' N 'we Pi N ,4" N CLEARVIEW 5284 R-4 5270 �- :; FP# 5260 En 5250 rommtt. ra Egg �E! 5240 riff wpm 5230 EIMITAgrErammi Mimi" mE` 5210 W000ALE 5150 5155 51., 5185 5140 5175 5160 5150 5140 EDGEWOOD JR. HIGH SCHOOL 0 510 5135 5101 _I el ! -4-! nI 1 0 MI N c t Zoning Map Planning Case 533 ®98 Applicant: Timothy White Location: 5249 Greenfield Avenue A%4 =AM tar �Pi _= fl Lift —,\ {Ilr : :G. -® JE�fHIHI: �� ra �fH111f1 v ��1p \P 1_Ili� il\ Ill _ li��11i j�, ww x �wi4A \� iI 1lll 11111 iiiiiiiiilN IIeII ryllrllill ifEll S I i iiiliifl 1 1 Ikll�lleiufu iii �j �i fl 1 nnalum 1 u wkutltllfu Ilia f€EiIRIIRn hl111tE111k11ltlll _T� li llp �_� �• \��^_ ■ in I 0�= rN i•�� "1107 11iI1 Illlllll MEI :.111 llllrl a �uellull Mil 1 rrlrll; "rfM l.' nlV 1 llllllll 11,114 �f •Ili 1pr MM 19 9 17 i _L =II MOM CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW LOCATION MAP Applicant: Timothy White Property: 5249 Greenfield Avenue Request: Variance PLANNING CASE NO. 533 -98 5249 Greenfield Avenue ESI Properties Within 3501 X49 Greenfield Avenue' ■ ■ Ed ewood School HOUSE Locked Gate SHED GARAGE Lock =d Gate Driveway MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 556 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED TWO -FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SIDEWALK LOCATED AT 5249 GREENFIELD AVENUE; PLANNING CASE NO. 533 -98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Timothy White to permit a sidewalk within the two -foot sideyard setback at his home located at 5249 Greenfield Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential District and is legally described as: Lot 15, Block 2, Eigenheer Second Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan WHEREAS, the sidewalk for which this variance is requested by the applicant has already been constructed, replacing a sidewalk that had been present in excess of twenty years; and, WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the slope of the land laying between the garage and the adjoining property necessitates that some type of walkway be constructed to access the garden area and shed to the rear of the garage; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the grade of the land is somewhat inhibitive for access without a leveling of the grade (which could disrupt drainage) or installation of a sidewalk; and, Planning Commission Resolution 556.98 September 2, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that other property owners have unobstructed access to the area between their garage and property line; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that the the City Code allows driveways - -a more intensive use - -to be located within one foot of a property line; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood in that a sidewalk would have no impact upon property values, supply alight or air, and may even decrease the risk to public safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Timothy White, to allow a sidewalk within the two -foot sideyard setback at 5249 Greenfield Avenue. Adopted this 2nd day of September, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPSTONIDEV\DEVCASES\533-981556-98ARES REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: September 16, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 536 -98 Applicant: Daniel Hall & Charles Herbst Request: The applicants are requesting a zero -foot parking lot setback to allow for a joint -use parking lot between the Mermaid and Perkins restaurants. Location: 2200 - 2214 Highway 10 PIN Nos. Mermaid: 08-30-23-43-0006, 08- 30 -23 -43 -0007, 08-30-23-43-0008 Perkins: 08-30-23-41-0010 Zoning/Land Use: B -3, Highway Business District / Bowling & Entertainment Center, Restaurant Applicable Regulations: Section 1104.01, Subd. 4c(2)(b): Parking lots shall maintain a five -foot setback from the side and rear property lines. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Attachments: Background: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plan Joint Use Agreement Resolution 560 -98 The applicants are requesting a variance from the required five -foot setback established for parking lots in a business district. The parking lot for the Mermaid has been expanded and resurfaced in accordance with the development plans submitted to and approved by the City on May 11, 1998. It was discovered after the fact that the development plans were in error, such that the parking lot north of the building encroaches into the required sideyard setback and in one area crosses the property line onto the Perkins property. Mermaid 1 Perkins Parking Lot Variance Planning Case No. 536-98 September 15, 1998 Page 2 Analysis: To compensate the Perkins property, the Mermaid has opened a secondary access drive between the two businesses, complementing the existing joint access. This access should serve to increase circulation between the sites and to improve the safety of Mermaid patrons by diverting Perkins traffic to the rear of the Mermaid. In addition, representatives from both properties have entered into a joint use agreement, such that both properties are protected in the event either use or ownership should change. In addition, the City will require that a cross - access and shared parking easement be filed with Ramsey County to legitimize the arrangement. This document is being drafted by the City Attorney and should be available to the Commission and applicants prior to the meeting. According to Section 1125.02 of the City Code, the following seven criteria need to be satisfied in order for a variance to be justified. Economic factors alone do not justify variance and the property owner cannot be responsible for the action or condition that necessitates the approval of a variance. The criteria, with responses, are as follows: 1 Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The development plans prepared for the Mermaid expansion and adopted by the City Council were in error, resulting in the parking lot being constructed over the five-foot setback and onto the adjacent property. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The parking is required to be installed in accordance with the development agreement and the parking requirements as imposed by the City Code, which apply for all uses within the City. 3. Special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The site plans were drafted by outside consultants, upon whose expertise and abilities the applicant and City had entrusted and believed to be accurate. 4. Granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Other properties within the City have combined parking lots and joint accesses. Planning Commission Resolution 560 -98 September 2, 1998 Page 3 5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The minimum required width for two aisles of parking with an access drive in between them is sixty feet, which is what was shown on the original development plans. The variance requested will allow for the sixty feet to he installed according to the plans approved by the City Council. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other properties in the . same zone. Both circulation and safety between and within the two properties would improve while parking can he sufficiently expanded to meet the requirements as outlined by the City Code The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The joint parking and access would improve congestion, improve public safety and improve parking on both sites. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution 560 -98, a resolution approving a variance for a zero - foot setback for a parking lot, on properties located at 2200 - 2214 Highway 10. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIDEVCASES\536-98\ VARIANCERPT inene 17 4 Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address Please Type or Print Informatio rk-,1. p1 elk/ -4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 5511 612- 717-4020 612484 -3462 - FAX n - Complete Both Sides of This Form Interest in Property (check appropriate box) VI, Owner of Property a. .. - a Lessee, Operator, Manager .Q Agreement to Purchase 0 - Other (explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address of General Location _ Legal Description Telephone (/ � - 7 ' - 73 2 Fax 1, /2- 7854-0 /o7 - Contract for Deed Owner Property Identification # IN - # of Acres Current Zoning d3 '?, •,� Type of-Application a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 0 Rezoning a Major Subdivision 0 Minor Subdivision a Planned Unit Development (PUD) a PUD Amendment 0 a a Develop Review /Site Plan o Wetland Alteration Permit a Wetland Buffer Permit Q Floodplain Permit a Other S250 S250 /acre; min S250 max S 1500 S250 ± S250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees 5350 R-1, R -2 S75; all others $250 R4, R -2 S I O0 all oth SI00 • $ 125 /acre; min S125 max S750 R-1, R -2 S150; all others 5200 R-1, R -2 S25; ail others S t 00 $200 '"Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and stator consultant tune spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shalt be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Anv portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days after consideration ot'the application is completed- Please complete the reverse side of this application., City of Mounds View, MN • Develo ment A lication l? �e ? Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling 0 Multi - family Dwelling Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other (explain) Property Classification Description of Proposal 0 Abstract ❑ Torrens BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BE `. OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PRO V }ED IS TRUE AND ACC ;11i,'TE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) b / IEL L. L-Z Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. r - n1 �b 60-dav Limit l 20-day limit L. kV( lArAPPv Ad 27-00 ... iU rttiok- t.v050,60 MK) 73So Gar( FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application: Park Dedication: Deposits: Other. Total: Fees Paid: p e 0 V:'.DATAAGROUPS1COMDEV\FORJ S \DEV,-1PP.FOR Account # �Ot, -D3 Check 3as)9 Receipt # 1198 5323 5324 PARK PF N N N 53.30 532 0 5330 532 JJL 5267 5263 5309 5299 525 527 5269 525 524 523 5229 521 520 PUD 5251 tjt W004ALE DR 8 5200 )0 U x a 5201 5150 EDGEWOOD JR. HIGH SCHOOL CRE -1 CO — • —RD e -3 TOWNS EDGE TERRACE MOBILE HOME PARK rmeramminuel Zoning Map Applicant: Location: Planning Case 536 ®98 Dan Hall / Mermaid 2200 - 2214 Highway 10 INTERSTATE 35W Irlr -- .. I4df41,rwnij' rrr 141!~ q! Wit ....: 3l14 4WF• IIIlIUl +i. _., CITY OF MOUtWS VIEW LOCATION MAP Applicant: Property: Request: PLANNING Mermaid 2200 Highway 10/ 2214 Highway 10 Variance (parking) CASE NO. 536 -98 2200 & 2214 Highway 10 Properties Within 350' Mermaid /Perkins Site I PRII M ir+rsv} ON ia NEH 11EEIttaLlE1 - — HIIIlllMMlll : =IIIIll11O - I111111III EIIIIIIiIIIIII NINE NNW MEM MHO moan- WNW mos C. mum NIS INO MUM kill ErrEEi EM AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (Agreement) is made between CHARLES HERBST, as Personal Representative of the Estate of ELEANOR HERBST, Deceased, who was at the time of her death a single person (Herbst) and MOUNDS VISTA, INC. a Minnesota corporation (Mounds Vista) and dated September , 1998. WHEREAS: A. Herbst is the owner in fee simple of that certain tract and parcel of land located in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota and legally described as follows, to -wit: Lot 1, Block I, Herbst Enterprises, Ramsey County, Minnesota (hereinafter the Herbst Tract); and, B. Mounds Vista is the owner in fee simple of that certain tract and parcel of land located in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota and legally described as follows, to -wit: See attached Exhibit A (hereinafter the Mounds Vista Tract); and, C. The Herbst Tract and the Mounds Vista Tract are adjacent to one another and the parties are mutually desirous of describing an arrangement under which access to and from the respective parcels will be provided and certain encroachments permitted, alI upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt in sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree: I. Access. Herbst and Mounds Vista jointly agree that they will, subject to the terms of this Agreement, permit access from one tract to the other for the convenience of their guests, patrons, invitees and employees, said access to be located along their common property line as depicted on the attached Exhibit "B ". 2. Parking. The parties agree that during the term of this Agreement they will permit their respective guests, invitees, employees and patrons to park upon the property of the other in the areas designated for parking on their respective tracts. 3. Encroachments. Herbst grants to Mounds Vista a limited license to permit encroachment of certain parking improvements upon the Herbst Tract and to allow Mounds Vista to create parking spaces which are immediately adjacent to the common property line. 4. Term. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon give thirty (30) days prior written notice. Upon termination, any driveway access and/or curb cuts may be removed, closed or obstructed and all encroachments which have been made by Mounds Vista upon the Herbst Tract shall be removed by Mounds Vista within 60 days following termination of this Agreement. 5. Notices. All notices permitted are required to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be mailed to the parties at the addresses set forth below, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, said notice to be effective upon receipt: Charles Herbst Personal Representative of the Estate of Eleanor Herbst 2299 County Road H Moundsview, MN 55112 Mounds Vista, Inc. c/o Mermaid 2200 Highway 10, Moundsview, MN 55112 Either party may change the address or party to which notices shall or may be sent by giving notice thereof to the other in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. 6. Mercier. This Agreement supersedes all prior understandings between the parties with respect to the matters discussed in this Agreement and this Agreement may only be modified or amended by a writing signed by both of the parties. 7. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and respective heirs, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunder caused their presence to be made the day and year first written above. MOUNDS VISTA, INC. Bv: Its: P' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. Charles Herbst Personal Representative of the Estate of Eleanor Herbst The foregoing instrument wasacknowledged before me this all-lay of ..._ � 197i'by L- Him the fT of Mounds Vista, Inc., a Minnesota corporation on behalf of the corporation. 3 / Pi P140.4.1 dIH�.• / N(thuiY PUUUc- MINNESOTA ANOKA COUNTY My Cannniaian bxirs Jan. 31, 2000 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .may 19'N by Charles Herbst, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Eleanor Herbst, Deceased who was at the time of her death a single person and to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument as his free act and deed. THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Chris H. Berndt WARCHOL, BERNDT & HAJEK, P.A. 3433 Broadway Street N. E. Suite 110 Minneapolis, MN 55413 (612) 331 -4211 190501.AGM 4 Notary Public !/ 7 71 G (;f Frig R Nomad ad PUOtIGMINNF,OTAj .:tea ANOKA COUNTY " "`• My Commission atones Jall312000 • 4�. ° llJJ.' ✓ ✓llJlJr EXHIBIT A Tract A That part of the East 546.75 feet of the South 715.1 feet of the SWV4 of the SEV4 of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23 in Ramsey County, Minnesota lying Southwesterly of the Southwesterly right of way line of U.S_ Highway No. 10 as it is now laid out and travelled and lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of the East 546.75 feet of said SW' of the SE% distant 445.25 feet North of the South line of said SW% of the SE% as measured along said West line of the East 546.75 feet thereof; thence North 86 °52'52" East (assumed bearing of the West line of East 546.75 feet of said SW% of the SEI is North 0°47'11" West) and to the Southwesterly right of way line of said U. S. Highway No. 10 and except that part of the following described property included in the above described tract: Commencing at a point on the South line of the SEI /4 of the SE% of said Section 8 distant 897.5 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence North 35 °07' West (assumed bearing of West on said South line) a distance of 392.7 feet to the center line of County Road H; thence South 54 °53' West along said center Iine, a distance of 145.0 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 54 °53' West 120.0 feet; thence North 35 °07' West 252.0 feet; thence North 54 °53'. East, 190.0 feet to the Southwesterly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 10; thence South 35 °07' East along said Southwesterly right of way line 200.0 feet; thence South 54 °53' West along said right of way Iine 70.0 feet; thence South 35 °07' East along said right of way line 52.0 feet to the point of beginning. West Lat Line -5 ± LOCATION SURVEY For: The MERMAID. of • Property Line and adjoining parking between The Mermaid and Perkins in Mounds View, Minnesota -North Lot Line EXISTING CONCRETE CURB N • Ile 1 "= 60' •THE MERMAID 0001TION•..- L1 ASKING LOT 7 r • Job No. 98491 LS I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota E. G. •RUD & SONS, INC C Date 8°13-76 Registration No 98°8 Drw. By BAO E. G. Rua 4 SONS, INC LAND SURVEYORS �I =• LEXNN TON AVE. NO. CIRCLE PINES, MINNESOTA 55014 -362 TEL. 786 -5556 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 560 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A ZERO -FOOT SIDE YARD PARKING LOT SETBACK FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2200 - 2214 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 533 -98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Daniel Hall, representing the Mermaid, and Charles Herbst, representing the Perkins property, to allow a joint -use parking lot which overlaps the common property line between the Mermaid, located at 2200 Highway 10, and Perkins, located at 2214 Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, this properties are zoned B -3, Highway Business District and have the following property identification numbers (PINS): Mermaid: 08-30 -23 -43 -0006 08- 30 -23 -43 -0007 08- 30 -23 -43 -0008 Perkins: 08- 30 -23 -41 -0010 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan / Survey 5. Joint Use Agreement WHEREAS, the parking lot for which this variance is requested has already been constructed in accordance with the development plans approved by the City Council on May 11, 1998 in Resolution 5236; and, WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control, in that the plans prepared for the Mermaid expansion and adopted by the City Council were in error. Planning Commission Resolution 560-98 September 2, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the parking is required to be installed in accordance with the development agreement and that the City Code does allow for joint parking and off-site parking arrangements; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the site plans were drafted by outside consultants, upon whose expertise and abilities the applicant and City entrusted; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that other properties within the City have combined parking lots and joint parking arrangements; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship, in that the minimum required width for two aisles of parking with an access drive in between is sixty feet, which is what was shown on the original development plans. The variance requested will allow for the sixty feet to be installed according to the plans approved by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other properties in the same zone in that both circulation and safety between and within the two properties would improve while parking can be sufficiently expanded to meet the requirements as outlined by the City Code; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood in that the joint parking and access would improve congestion, improve public safety and improve parking on both sites. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Daniel Hall and Charles Herbst, to allow a zero -foot setback for a joint use parking lot between the Mermaid, located at 2200 Highway 10, and Perkins, located at 2214 Highway 10. Adopted this 16th day of September, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: September 16, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 535 -98 Applicant: Michael Tobias Request: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for two curb -cuts at his residence at the northeast corner of Eastwood Road and Sherwood Road. Location: 8111 Eastwood Road PIN Nos. 06- 30 -23 -14 -0009 Zoning/Land Use: R -1, Single - Family Residential / Single - family residence Applicable Regulations: Section 1121.09, Subd 5e, which states that "Single - family uses shall be limited to one curb cut access per property unless, upon application for a variance of this restriction, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals finds that it is in the interest of public safety to waive such." Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Attachments: Background: Planning Application Zoning Map Location Map Letter to Applicant, dated 7/28/98 Area Curb-cut Survey Resolution 558 -98 The applicant is requesting a variance from the Code requirement that states a single - family property shall be limited to only one curb cut. Earlier this year, the applicant took out a building permit to resurface his driveway, which had access onto both Sherwood Road and Eastwood Road. At the time, staff indicated that a building permit could not be approved due to the non - conforming nature of the driveway, unless the access to Sherwood Road was removed. The applicant agreed and the permit was issued. Subsequent reinspection of the property showed that both access points remained, both having been improved contrary to the permit. The Building Inspector sent the Tobias Driveway Variance Planning Case No. 535 -98 September 16, 1998 Page 2 applicant a letter in which two choices were indicated -- either remove the driveway access to Sherwood Road or apply for and receive a variance, The applicant has chosen to apply for a variance in order to maintain the driveway in its present condition. Analysis: To understand the prevalence of the type of driveway configuration present at 8111 Eastwood Road, Staff surveyed corner properties north of Hillview between Groveland and Long Lake Road. There are 54 corner lots in this area, of which ten (18.5 percent) have multiple curb -cuts. (Refer to the attached corner parcel inventory.) In comparison, the percentage of all residential properties with more than one curb cut is less than one percent. The case can be made that corner properties present unique safety issues, with as many as four distinct paths of traffic to monitor while backing out of the driveway. Some corner lots, because of tree - cover, shrubs and other plantings, have limited visibility thereby increasing the safety risk. The City Code indicates in Section 1121.09 Subdivision 5e that for the Planning Commission to waive the requirement limiting a property to one curb cut, it can do so in the interest of public safety. Staff is unsure if that requirement supersedes the criteria for granting a variance, as found in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Code. Because of this, all of the criteria will be examined, which are as follows: 1 Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The fact that this property is a corner lot, while not exceptional or unusual, does present some safety considerations over which the properly has little control 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. As indicated above, twenty percent of the corner lots within the general area of the subject property have multiple curb cuts. Requiring the applicant to remove one curb cut would deprive him of a use that many other corner lots enjoy. When compared against all residential properties, no deprivation would exist, as the number of all residential properties with multiple curb cuts is less than one percent. 3. Special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant did not cause the non - conforming use, but has perpetuated its use and has improved upon the driveway in violation of the City Code. Planning Commission Resolution 560 -98 September 2, 1998 Page 3 4. Granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Depending upon how you categorize the property, it can be thought that a special privilege would be conferred on the applicant that is typically denied to other residential properties. Among corner lots, the variance would not be conferring a special privilege to the applicant. 5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Adding the second curb cut is the minimum variance possible to alleviate the hardship of living on a corner lot. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other properties in the same zone. Assuming that corner lots are different from typical residential lots due to the increased risk to public safety - -that of the residents of the property and other motorists passing by the property -- granting the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code as public safety would take precedence. 7. The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Allowing for a variance to maintain the two curb cuts can only benefit the public safety. In addition, approval would not increase any congestion or impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Clearly, it can be shown that there is a legitimate public safety basis upon which to approve a variance to allow two curb cuts at 8111 Eastwood Road. Whether or not the criteria support approval of a variance in this situation is a matter of interpretation. Recommendation: Given the ambiguous nature of Section 1121.09, Subd, 5e, Staff is presenting the Planning Commissions with two versions of Planning Commission Resolution 558 -98, one approving the variance request and the other denying the request. James Ericson, Planning Associate N: 1DATAIOROUPSICOMDEV1DEVCASES153 5- 981TOBiAS.RPT -- - r• DtPP Pifilt4��1�y rA Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612 -717 -4020 - ... 612 ®784 -3462 ® FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form - Interest in Property (check appropriate box) x - 0caner` �a Property -r _ ---r ., yy _ pw,�,,_ 7� - Y_Gg..�._}..-'t� Ct�i- $.Fmi.1LL.t�d® Operator, Manager ✓ ra - ..ate • Other (explain) I a .Agreement to Phase' ? _f:.. .. ... v • .... . Telephone Applicants must provide evidence of interest in �p �.._.•�� p rty at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permissions from the owner giving-consent props owner to the Ms' of than application. The property must sign this application for it to he 'accepted.. r r _ , _ Property Description/Proposal ' Address or General - Legal D sc ptt .- a _.i ��, -• -_ _ .. -L �,�. �.... ..Z• 1dentifiCatxon #.(p)N- y �.: $ e v= rte• I4+ tS' •••• M4,11! b 4i 4�� # of Acres Cwt Zoning Type of Application Reso, de .. Comprehe,sive Plan Amendment' a Rezoning ❑ Major Subdivision a Minor Subdivision '❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ PUD Amendment • Conditional Use Permit Variance ❑ Code Appeal Q Develop Review /Site Plan ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit ❑ Floodplain Permit ❑ Other 5250 /acre, min S250 max SI 500 5250 +5250 deposit* $200 Refer to rezoning fees 5350 - .R-I, R -2 S75; all others 5250 R -1, R -2 S i 00 all others 5250 5100 S125/acre, min 5125 max 5750 R -1, R -2 5150; all others 5200 _R-1, R -2 S25; all others 5100 5200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notic,s, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days alter consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse aide of this application. City of Mounds View, MN Develo ment A lication Present Use of Property o • Undeveloped/Vacant . Single Family Dwelling Duplex/1'w° Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling G Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Indus trial Establishment • Other (explain) Property Classification Description ofP pposal Abstract Q Torrens C461C Page 7 BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE A .,CURATE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner ( typed/printed) 'C 4. -3. ---rasios Address of Owner /// eev:,6 -- it% 'Phone Number of Owner j3 32 - s * * * **, * * ** * *`6 * *1 * * * * *, ***, p * * * * * * * * * * ** **** * * * **** *t4* * * ** M****** * *** * * * ** * * ***** * * **** ** ******* Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Planning Case No, Application: Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: Fees Paid: 4/ O D FOR OFFICE USE ONLY N:IDATA\GROUPS\CO,ifDt:VIFORd 1S1DEV.APP.FOR Assigned to: 60-day Limit 120-day limit Account # /D0 -3z0 Check # 5°,71.0 /rs Receipt # 1/98 Jti 8315 8.300 22 8305 8290 )0 (Th 8285 8280 8275 8270 8265 8260 ix 8255 8250 08 00 084 046 036 026 1016 3000 990 u? N n N N N n N to to n N 01 N N co r N v N O N N 8240 8230 8220 8210 uo r3 N N tn N 31 N R N 820C (0 N N (3 In N m N N N0 ni N N 8148 (f] n N Ql M1 N 8142 (L} in � r. '( N 8085 8075 80 0 n N 8080 8070 8060 8025 804-0 8015 8028 8005 7985 8016 8004 980 960 950 934 932 7975 7965 7970 7960 7955 7956 7933 7950 u7 t..;; N N 17900 0a 0 w 8303 8295 8287 8281 8310w 8291 Z 8281 8305 8310 8290 8280 8270 8273 8260 8267 8250 8261 8240 8255 01 N AVE 8211 8290 8261 8251 40 N cn (0 N 8280 8270 8260 8250 n co 01 N co to 04 (0 N N 8184 cy 5321 0 9 8285 8273 8290 8280 8265 8260 8255 8250 8241 5242 8231 8232 M 8205 (0 .J (0 N O 0 (0 (0 N N 0 0 z 14 0 8330 8295 8273 8310 8267 8300 8255 8280 co N 1 n N 8260 8250 0 03 N N n N in 9230 8193 8180 8185 8175 8160 817 8224 8212 (B N (0 in N 8206 8200 6150 8140 8132 8100 8081 8071 8089 8039 8088 8066 8050 8042 8032 8025 8018 8009 8006 7981 7990 7979 7980 7959 7970 7949 7954 7940 7930 7901 7900 HILLVIEW 8075 8071 8(185 8045 8033 8011 8060 8052 8040 8000 7981 7990 7969 7980 7965 7959 7966 7945 7946 7935 7930 (1} (0 N 0, (0 7900 7885 3) N 7880 7866 MENEM Ir Qm O 0 8051 8035 8021 7989 7979 7969 072 8050 8044 8032 8022 8000 7996 7980 7960 7950 7927 7917 7940 7901 N (0 N 7895 N .a N 7867 M1 to N 7900 ROAD W i 7890 7870 7851 7860 7841 7850 784-0 7815 7809 7790 0 0 7770 2 7801 8045 8031 8019 8001 EMI ECM 8046 8038 8030 8010 7990 7970 7964 HlLLVIEW 7901 PARK PP (0 7885 7869 ld 7864 7858 7865 7852 7855 7846 7835 7840 7815 7800 7805 7780 7760 AR DAN PARK ,1.7.4111,19111111111A 8283 8271 8247 8239 8225 8217 8205 8145 8135 I, N 810 8085 Ir p 8071 8041 8035 8011 7977 7975 7955 7945 kn 901 7) 786i(Nn 10 N N 7853 784.1 7829 7817 7809 7801 7797 Zoning Map Planning Case 535 -98 Applicant: Michael Tobias Location: 8111 Eastwood Road �? 4 ,r,1r1;1 s111..1; �illH 11g1111114i: ;; ;; , ,•%; llilnlll.I ■U 1111111111111: •11111 €H0 ,,t',w X1111111111 ti;IfW1111111M CITY Of MOUNDS VIEW LOCA'IJON MAP Applicant: Michael Tobias Property: 8111 Eastwood Road Request: Variance PLANNING CASE NO. 535 -98 8111 Eastwood Road Properties Within 350 Feet 8111 Eastwood Road istalagammatee ORIESINE EISION BUISIEN NMINEBE EMMIE iMMN C 140 g ra /144_,.1-- 5 tr CITY OF QUADS A °d'ress Part Evif July 28, 1998 Mike Tobias 8111 Eastwood Road Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: Permit #98095 Asphalt Driveway Replacement Dear Mr. Tobias: Phone: (612) 717-4000 Pax: (61 2) 784 -3462 You recently obtained a permit for replacing the driveway on your property. During the permit review process you were informed that the City code restricts the number of curb cuts allowing street access to residential properties to only one access. You questioned and objected to this requirement based upon the it that the driveway had existed for some time with access to both Eastwood Road and Sherwood Road. You were told that the driveway constituted a nonconforming condition and the status of the nonconforming condition could remainas long as the driveway be maintained in its existing state. However, because the existing asphalt was removed and the nonconforming condition was abated the ability to maintain the nonconforming status was no longer possible. The permit was issued under the condition that the access to Sherwood Road would not be reinstalled. A subsequent inspection of the property has revealed that both previously existing accesses have been reinstalled. This situation creates a nonconforming condition that, because of the removal of the previous nonconforming condition, is a violation of Municipal Code. Your choices at this time, are 1) remove the portion of asphalt that connects the street to the property line that creates one of the accesses or 2) apply for and receive a variance that will allow you to continue the nonconforming condition. I am enclosing an application for you to use to request a variance if you should choose to. The variance process is handled by Planning Associate Jim Ericson. He can be reached at 717 -4022. l• •f•erglf 6 Wi re � .(1 HlirthtAfav 1() + Mni inris Vjp1.v MN ` 1 Mike Tobias July 28, 1998 Page 2 of 2 To bring closure to this matter please either remove the above mentioned asphalt or submit the application for the variance request within ten days from the date of this letter. If you should have questions regarding this matter, please call me at 7I7 -4024. Sincerely, CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW Rick 'arson Building Official cc Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Corner Parce 1 Corner Lots z lead a el buoi Apo p 0 LIG-Ole September 11, 1998 uoH isuuNse orilish PE0:1 ems uunS ill__ II s ON • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 558 -98 ( o P ri o),) " A " CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR TWO CURB -CUTS AT A SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8111 EASTWOOD ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO„ 535 -98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Michael Tobias, to allow for two curb cuts at his property, located at 8111 Eastwood Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R -1, Single- Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Subject to Sherwood and Eastwood Roads, The East 215 Feet of the West 1799 Feet of the South 200 Feet of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Letter from Building Inspector, dated 7128198 6. Corner Parcel Inventory WHEREAS, the existence of the driveway, for which this variance is requested, predates the enactment of Ordinance No. 288, which among other things, limits a single - family residential property to only one curb cut; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may waive the requirement to limit a single - family residential property in the interest of public safety; and, WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control, in that the property is a corner lot and is thus subject to additional public safety concerns; and, Planning Commission Resolution 558 -98 September 2, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that nearly twenty percent of the corner lots surrounding the subject property have two curb cuts; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the driveway's existence predates the enactment of the Ordinance which prohibits two curb cuts; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that other corner lots within the City have two curb cuts; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship, in that adding the second curb cut is the minimum variance possible to alleviate the hardship of living on a corner lot; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other properties in the same zone in that maintaining the public safety does not conflict with the City Code; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood in that approving the variance for a second curb cut at this location would lessen the endangerment to public safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance to allow two curb cuts at 8111 Eastwood Road as requested by Michael Tobias. Adopted this 16th day of September, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:1DATA1GROUPS1COMDEVIDE V CAS ES1535 -9815 58 -98 A. RES MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 558 -98 ( o PTI o N " o " ) CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR TWO CURB -CUTS AT 8111 EASTWOOD ROAD, A SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNED BY MICHAEL TOBLAS; PLANNING CASE NO. 535 -98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Michael Tobias to allow for two curb cuts at his property, located at 8111 Eastwood Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R -1, Single - Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Subject to Sherwood and Eastwood Roads, The East 215 Feet of the West 1799 Feet of the South 200 Feet of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. PIanning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Letter from Building Inspector, dated 7/28/98 6. Corner Parcel Inventory WHEREAS, the applicant applied for and received Building Permit no. 98095 to repave his driveway, on the condition that the access to Sherwood Road be removed; and, WHEREAS, inspections after the work was completed showed that the access had not be removed, but instead had been improved, violating the terms of the permit; and, WHEREAS, a variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner's land; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that there is no undue hardship or practical difficulties associated with this property which would warrant approving a variance, based upon the following evidence: Planning Commission Resolution 558-98 Tobias Driveway Variance 8111 Eastwood Road September 16, 1998 Page 2 (1) More than eighty percent of the corner lots in this section of the City have only one curb cut, and, (2) There are no physical obstructions, such as a bend in the road, trees, bushes or shrubs, that would restrict visibility to and from the property, and, (3) There is ample room on the property to have a turnaround, or "T" extension to the main drive to enable vehicles to exit the property in forward motion rather than in reverse. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denies the variance to allow two curb cuts at 8111 Eastwood Road and directs the property owner to remove the access to Sherwood Road in accordance with the letter sent to the property owner dated 7/28/98. Adopted this 16th day of September, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:\DATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDEVCASES1535-98\558-98D.R_ES PROCEEDINGS OF '1 Ht., MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION 1'HE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2401 Highway 10, Special Meeting August 19, 1998 Mounds w City Hall nds,tf ew, MN 55112 1. Call to Order Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View Plannin 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call n special me -: at Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissi$ ' rasae , Miller, Obert, and Stevenson. Members absent: Council Liaison Koop . ers Also present: Community Develop a ' 1 irect Recorder Dave Rix. Associate Planner Jim Ericson; and Index to Planning Ca Recommendin Accessory B of Resolution 554 -98, a Resolution Use Permit for an Oversized ve, Tammy Bellamy Planni' ease No. 532- Recp ending Approv SYSe0 FOODS Page 2 eration of Resolution 555 -98, a Resolution 4 evelopment Review Request, 2400 County Road 1, ' equests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda The eavere -no citizens' requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes A. July 1, 1998 (Regular) PLANNING COMMISSION August 19, 1998 Page 2 MOTION /SECOND: Brasaemle /Stevenson to approve the July 1, 1998 Planning Commission regular meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes -6 Nays -0 Motion carried 5, Planning. Case Noe 531 -98 2185 Pinewood Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 554 -98, a Resolution Use Permit for and Oversized Accessory Building. Applicant: Tammy Bellamy The applicant, Tammy Bellamy, was pres Associate Ericson gave his report a Currently there is a small, one the corner to . Iocated at 21 permissio a � struct located ` 0 lie the hoUs back furthery " 4 operty but chose to 6 pproval of a Conditional ood D are foo and a detached single -car garage on cy Street. The applicant was requesting garage, 24 feet wide by 42 feet deep, to be feet from the west property line. The garage would be set use. The applicant had requested a similar CUP in 1997, ion could be taken by the City Council. At past Playing on S o sto e d Cif Council meetings, the issue of building a proportional n relatios p requirement 1hr house and garage had been discussed. Those discussions led to th= adoption of Ordin 1, which in this case, would not impact the applicant's request be eti e Ordinance 620 es into effect September 4, 1998. ad determine The e rt tiatati e rear yard is large enough to satisfy the 20 percent rear yard coverage ion then became: "Is the proposed garage too large for the site and the ce this concern the following uses were listed for the garage: 1. Create adequate storage space for the resident's vehicles and yard appliances 2. Create storage space for resident's car hauler The use of privacy fencing by the Bellamys and their adjoining neighbor will screen the garage from view at the street. PLANNING COMMISSION August 19, 1998 Page 3 An 80- foot -long driveway would be part of the improvement and would be constructed of concrete. As a condition of granting the CUP, it was stated that the driveway improvement take place within a three -month -time period. An additional requirement imposed by ap ing this CUP would be to further screen the proposed garage by means of erecti+ pri : fence parallel to Pinewood Drive between the garage and the property line .' the we Staffs concern was that the garage (1,008 sq. ft.) was ou (682 sq. ft.). The width of the garage from the street vi to that of the house. "The bulk of the garage will not b a community perspective to have property owners impr properties are then usually kept in better order," Ericson roportio howeve n fro " e street. 1 roperties with ga of the ho It was staffs recommendation to have the Planning Co resolution recommending to the City Council appro application, requested by Tammy Bellamy, 218 S1 et- Mgegki sq."- nce the ar om to prepare a tional Use Permit Chairperson Peterson returned the floor t•e Co �{ s� '$+ns and comments of the applicant. Tammy Bellamy, 2185 Pinewoo application expire because she h she was not . ble to take the appiicatio neighb Bellam .A.: The work being Stevenson owner dec. tol. ' xe Co ' `p on she had let her 1997 CUP ecome tir of fig with her neighbor over the matter, and ed time ® ` '> • attend meetings in regards to the put up a 0 : ence to screen their property from the e also gu. anteed to their neighbors that there will be no on their own, stored in the garage. open a neig ex ds to what would happen to the property if its current garage, if allowed, would be attractive for somebody wanting to the garage. This use would not be a permitted use for the an could get the garage approved, she would be staying in Mounds View ad future remodeling plans for the house, too. e would like to include as part of the Resolution that privacy fencing be :a. equately screen the building. Obert stated if the property was in such a condition that a privacy fence was required to hide it from view that he would be opposed to this type development. He stated his concern that the City would be setting a dangerous precedent for the development of other oversized and out of proportion garages in the community. PLANNING COMMISSION August 19, 1998 Page 4 Peterson countered by saying he would be in favor of the project because it would allow the Bellamys to keep a cleaner yard and they would have a place to store their vehicles and yard equipment. The expansion of the garage would encourage the home owner to add to their house, he added. Brooks stated the precedent for the garage size had alread developments in the neighborhood. She stated she wool encourage the upgrading of the Bellamys'property. Brasaemle agreed that the precedent had already been s stated he didn't want to see the City try to prevent its resi racing, by not allowing them to store things like car haul properties. Brasaemle stated he did have problems wi size of the house and what would happen to the pro sell the property. The positives, however, wer ge CUP to Peterson called for a "straw poll" to give the request or approving the request. T Obert Denial Stevenson Approval stipu Peter on Appr, A ellamys'neighbo e having hobbies such as auto s on their private age as compared to the ellamys decided to e stated. Bras Ericson told thz Commissi.I 6 P, Sit ,fl is nex ing Case No. 53 ounty Road ation 0 repare a resolution denying as as follows: epare a resolution to recommend approval for the meeting scheduled for September 2, 1998. lotion No. 555 -98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a view Request SCO FOODS The applicant, SYSCO FOODS, was present. Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION August 19, 1998 Page 5 SYSCO FOODS has applied for a development review to expand their existing facility by 106,000 square feet of building space and 152,500 square feet of parking space. The building addition will increase the amount of freezer space, cooler space, dry goods space, and office spa facets of the addition will include an expansion of the access driveway le. 9 'ng b the building, relocation of the will -call area, construction of a. ditional northeast corner of the site and additional truck parking al +M : e we At the time of the original SYSCO development, 1988, build -out. Because of revised standards and other draina. district permit will be required. The applicant has indic reports are also a requirement of the City. SYSCO was requesting some of the driveway setback expressed some concern in regards to this request neighboring wetland to the east (the City of M development is part of allows for deviations recommended that the access drive main entire eastern edge. This would result i unless it could be shifted to the wes Parking stalls for cars would inc stalls to 104 tails. The acc will•better, i odat . interse my Road property. b Other to the rear of rig at the property. site was requi nee ents, a ne s permit is in pr redue of the operty): ack r it o- setback status. Staff lose proximity to the UD which the cements. Staff ck along the property's ed to 40 feet in one area t.' mini e drive mpens sle be g distan e servic truck tr ows to While not a com the SYSC cess traffic al. Mounds the of ,' of this improve St° l Pfr ck parking would increase from 51 is proposed to be widened to 50, which access is currently 50 feet wide where it my 25 feet along the east side (wetland) of the e intersection of Xylite Street and County Road J (with of the intersection) will be improved with a full- movement e, Ramsey County, Anoka County and SYSCO are sharing in recommended apt oval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 555 -98, a Resolution ending to th'ty Council approval of a development review for the SYSCO FOODS • locate.. "x''`400 County Road J, with stipulations as noted in the staff report dated ments as needed. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions and comments. Several members of the Commission expressed concern that snowplowing of the parking lots and driveways would introduce possible pollutants into the wetland on the east side of the facility. PLANNING COMMISSION August 19, 1998 Page 6 Peterson asked the applicant how they intended to meet staffs recommendation that the east side drive have a minimum ten -foot setback. John Trumble, Setter Leech and Lindstrom, project architects, stated zero setback, as requested in the development review, was fel to be th the facilities operation and requested the Commission to co99 p this of its vi ated the only. SYSCO has calculated dimensions needed for the s truck drivers and the dimensions requested on the plan i achieve these safety dimensions. thy' 0 -foo fir. , e rive aisle and c situation for this request ees, and ne Obert suggested a container wall on the east side drivew' that no pollutants entered into the wetland from the SYSCO facility. Mr. Trumble stated there were aesthetic issues as operation � hat would not allow this type of structure. Miller asked how many new employees w be ad s planned expansion. Mr. Trumble stated an additional l ople, 450 t.< 50, would be added as a result of the expansion. Stevenson st ted he would recomme $ �'� staff to drivewa a�g . t are drivers. stipulation requiring a ten -foot setback as s dimensional requests (50- foot - access- safety needs of SYSCO's visitor, employees, and truck Brasaemle as requireme Mr°. storage would be and if the original PUD had ces are sacrificed so that snow storage can be accommodated. specific requirement in the PUD for snow storage other than the issue be stated by the developer. the recourse would be for a property owner pushing snow into a protected Jopke stated it would be an issue for the City's Code enforcement and the violation would subject the perpetrator to fines. MOTION /SECOND: Obert/Brasaemle to approve Resolution No. 555 -98, a Resolution PLANNING COMMISSION August 19, 1998 Page 7 Recommending Approval of a Development Review Request by SYSCO FOODS, striking the reference to the ten -foot setback requirement in the first stipulation of the Resolution. Chairperson Peterson opened the floor for discussion of the motion. Ericson stated a lighting plan had not been submitted. Th- ;:'cant' " .squired to submit a lighting plan for review before any permits were issued VOTE: Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried 7. Staff Reports/Information Items It was the consensus of the Commission to mov Bowling Center Expansion, to the Agenda Se A. Discussion Regarding Compre Jopke asked the Commission to c Work Sessions" for the Compre rvive Pl." date P =ss. It was the meeting 1. 2. 3. sus of t Septem Octobe No em .er't Hall Hall e to le announced B. i iscussion Reg Members arding Mermaid re dates and times for "Special e following dates and times for these ecommendation to Expand Planning Commission to Nine told the Coinnaission that the City Council had asked the Planning Commission for a . ndatio ding the possibility expanding the Planning Commission to its allowable main 6 embers to allow more participation. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Commission membership should remain at seven people. An increased number of people on the Commission was viewed as being nonproductive and could affect attendance at Planning Commission meetings. Ericson told the Commission a that the Council would be informed of the Commission's PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 August 19, 1998 sentiments through distribution of the minutes to the Council. Jopke told the Commission that the question has also been raised about whether t ._'fanning Commission meetings should be televised on Mounds View's cable chanty It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that tele meetings was an opportunity to better inform citizens ab members were personally not comfortable being on tele Planning Commission meetings on a trial basis. heP ity busin they a ssion •mission • res'ng t 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' R No reports were considered. 9. Adjournment MOTION /SECOND: Peterson/Miller to There being no further business bef the meeting at 8:38 p.m. (The me on Chairperson Peterson adjourned to the Agenda Session) PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2401 Highway 10 1. Call to Order Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll CaII Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Obert(7:30), and Stevenson. Members absent: Council Liaiso Also present: Community D Recorder Stacy Caton (fo 3. Cit. s° Requests Regular Meeting September 2, 1998 Mound w City Hall nd ew, MN 55112 ssion re rooks, Miller, to • Associate Planner Ericson; and of on the Agenda M o citz: is or comments on items not on the agenda for con Index to Minutes Planning Case No. 531 - R- titian Recommend ized Accessory T sideration of Resolution No. 554 -98, a approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an ding, 2185 Pinewood Drive, Tammy Bellamy Page 2 3 -98, Consideration of Resolution No. 556 -98, a 3 owing a Variance Request for a Sidewalk, 5249 Greenfield, Planning Case No, 534 -98, Consideration of Resolution No. 557 -98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage, 2442 Hillview Road, David Kramer 6 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 2, 1998 Page 2 4. Approval of Minutes A. July 15, 1998 MOTION /SE,COND: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve the July 5, 199$ _Commission Special Meeting Minutes as submitted. Ayes - 5 Motion carried. Nays - 0 5. Planning Case No. 53198 2185 Pinewood Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 554-98, a use Permit for and Oversized Accessory B Applicant: Tammy Bellamy The applicant was prese report Th her exi Co gar pproval of a Conditional ssion to construct a 1,008 square foot garage to replace he August 19, 1998 Planning Commission meeting the f this case, concerned about the disproportion of the Ouse. The Commission determined that the benefits of the new ehicles and yard equipment, outweighed the garage's size in re.. ending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 554 -98, and amendments as deemed necessary, and send the application on to cil for their consideration. erson returned the floor to the Commission for their consideration of the issue. Stevenson expressed his concern with Stipulation No. 3: "The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void." He asked if the language of the Resolution and Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 2, 1998 Page 3 stipulation was adequate to prevent a business from starting up in the garage. Ericson stated the City Code does allow for businesses in a garage or a house, with conditions as follows: 1. There cannot be any visible activities t.:..the stre 2. There cannot be any exterior storag 3. There cannot be more than two ve directly resulting from the busine remises, He added he didn't think a stipulation could be a business could not be operated out of the garage. Miller asked for clarification on the discussed acy the Resolution °y, ` '` at a Ericson told the Commission the priva August Planning Commission meet' would be built, running in line wit Peterson opened the floor to rding to eet ba No comments were cons Co 'ssion. s submitted at the om where the garage privacy fence corner. e floor was returned to the TIC ler to approve Resolution 554 -98, A Resolution Recommen r o• Val o g g s � al Use Permit for an Oversized Accessory Building, located at 21 bid. d Ian �» r Bellamy, applicant. 33 -98 venue Con of Resolution No. 556-98, A Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk. Applicant Timothy White The applicant was present. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 2, 1998 Page 4 Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: The applicant was requesting a variance from the required two -foot side established for decks, terraces or sidewalks. Mr. White has cons cted constructed of green -treed lumber, along his garage l...cated at sidewalk, which accesses a shed in the rear yard, r fallen into disrepair. The property alongside the sidewalk be supported by footings. The sidew y.. etback dewalk, enfield. The new alkway that had g that the can y fo within inches of a chain link fence that separates subje roperty fr y to the north. In addition to the garage, there is an t ` nd pool surrou & $ patio and landscaping, all of which is enclosed by a five vacy fence. The shed is outside of this fenced -in area. Section 1104.01, Subd. 5, regarding encroa similar features; provided they do not e the principal structure or to a distanc The sidewalk as it exists now d hardship as required by the getting a permit from the Ther-. have been no r or aga , decks, stoops or ground floor level of any lot line." ndition. There is no apparent id do the construction without or this type of construction. ation. 'al oft application based on the fact that the sidewalk was ere is no obvious hardship as required by City Code. Commission and asked the applicant for his report. gave two reasons for wanting the walkway: instal Peters ty.of the lot, ease of mowing the yard y access to the back yard area where the shed and yard maintenance quipment is kept. e didn't realize a building permit was required. His only excuse was ignorance, ed. The fence located near the walkway is set in five to six inches from the property line. White did canvas his neighbors on Greenfield and none of the people contacted voiced opposition to the walkway. Stevenson asked if the structure had the proper footings. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 2, 1998 Page 5 White stated the structure did not have footings. Brooks asked if a gravel walkway would work. Mrs. White told the Commission a gravel walkway would ma . °` r to move snowblowers, etc., and the gravel would be sloppe• ing ag . 9 situation. Brasaemte asked if there were utility easements the affe k prop Mr. White stated there were no utility easemen orth property lin dded, if he was not granted the variance he would cut the .'a ack to the two foot requirement. Stevenson stated his main concern was the the side of the walkway and the fence. should require the walkway to be cu side of the walkway. Peterson stated there are so i.e., allowing a one -foot s explained to the Whites t appe ... the decision de 6 . s meet Brad a reso ted to nial. space in between uest is denied, the City safety rail on the fence dinance that need to be resolved, two -foot setback for sidewalks. He ssion denies the request they could consideration, so the issue would not be e for two weeks to give staff the time they need to draft a mlest.t the same. D e added. Brasa considerations difying the ordinance so the setbacks of driveways and sidewalks ould eliminate the need for the variance that is being requested, d the Commission the slope at the property line and safety Id e the hardships. aka .�N E • 0 rooks/Miller to table Resolution 556 -98, a Resolution Approving a tIrrtr a Sidewalk, 5249 Greenfield, Timothy White, until the September 16, 1998 Pl. a , s ion meeting. The Commission directs staff to draft a Resolution approving the variant the hardships as discussed at this meeting. Ayes - 5 Motion carried Nays - 1(Obert) Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 2, 1998 Page 6 Obert stated he didn't buy the safety argument. He stated a gravel walkway would be just as safe, if not safer. 7. Planning Case No. 534 -98 2442 Hillview Road Consideration of Resolution No. 557 -98, a Resolution Use Permit for an Oversized Garage. Applicant: David Kramer Associate Ericson told the Commission that P withdrawn and there would be no consider add 14' on to the existing garage, whic was decided to extend the garage o garage under the 952 square foot was alleviated. 4 -98 had been ers intent was to at 960 square feet. It quare footage of the r a Conditional Use permit 8. Consideration of Resol Cou , it Appoint ution Recommending to the City emission Member as follows: The Co open P interviewed four candidates who had applied for the The City Council is asking that the Planning Commission Resolution Recommending to the City Council Appointment of n Member. The term would expire December 31, 1999. '•N E ory Johnson to fi the positio Stevenson to recommend to the City Council the appointment of e Planning Commission seat vacated by Marshall Johnston, with the iring December 31, 1999. asked for an update on applicants being considered by the Economic opment Commission(EDC). Jopke told the Commission that Sean Wolter and Wendy Marty had been appointed to the EDC. Br°asaenrle stated that Sean Wolters had stated his first choice of Commissions was the Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 2, 1998 Page 7 Plannning Commission. Due to the fact that he(Wolters) had been chosen for the EDC, Brasaemie stated he would be in favor of the nomination of Greg Johnson to fill the Planning Commission seat vacated by Marshall Johnston. VOTE: Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried 9. Stan Reports/Information Items Associate Ericson stated the Mounds View Matt the interne. They are also part of the City of M Jopke reminded the Commission members scheduled for the Comprehensive Plan 1. September 23, 199 2. October 14, 199 10. Chairperson and Planni View News Letter is now on eb site. ork sessions •r- listed as: Q.:,. g Stev son told the sion th � t�s ®�4,- creation Commission had voted that st wo ° er be a p act, the Park and Recreation Commission is by re City, tha ood Crest Park be used as a mitigated wetland at , for lot � � � �. mmunity Center. Designs for the wetland and addition � �`k� Ik oftrai 'od Ci . eing developed. Future details in regards to the tia Wood Ndevelb t will be forwarded when they are available. that the west end of the City had very limited park facilities. 1 g • °nda Session rther business before the Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson meeting at 8:32 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Mounds View Banning Commission Regular Meeting September 2, 1998 Page 8 NADATAIUSERSIBARB13ISHA EP- ITIWPDOCSICOMMIDEVlPLANNINGM UTES109- 02- 98.REG MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7,1998 7:00 P.M. REGULAR _MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes a. August 19, 1998 b. September 2, 1998 5. Staff Reports /Information Items a. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element b. Housing Element 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 7. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) ********* *« ** ** *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** * ** APPLICANTS: YOUR A 1-I'ENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717 -4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO A'1'l'END. THANK YOU. ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. September 16, 1998 (Special) N:IDATAI GROUPS ICOMDEVIPLANCOMMIPCAGENDA11998\ t 0- 7- 98.AGN PLAN NING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission, From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Date: October 1, 1998 The Planning Commission began its discussion of the draft land use element of the comprehensive plan on September 23rd. I have attached a copy of the revisions that were discussed at that meeting. Discussion of the draft land use element will continue at the October 7, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. It would be my goal to complete the discussion of the land use element on October 7th so that discussions can begin on the housing element at the October loth special meeting. Currently my goal is to have a completed draft of the Comprehensive Plan by the end of the year. After the first of the year, I would like to have another series of community forums to present the draft plan to citizens. Following the forums, the Planning Commission could then recommend a Comprehensive Plan to the City Council. The City Council would then hold a public hearing and approve the Comprehensive Plan subject to Metropolitan Council review. Following Metropolitan Council review the plan would be officially adopted. I have been asked to provide an update to the City Council at their October 12, 1998 meeting concerning the comprehensive plan. What I would like to do is to give a general overview of the process and then review the draft land use element in more detail. It would be helpful to have as many planning commission members as possible at the meeting to participate in the discussion. As additional sections are completed in the future, they could also be presented to the City Council in a similar manner. Three additional areas of the land use map should be discussed in more detail. These include the following: 1. Harstad site at County Rd. H -2 and Long Lake Rd. The site is currently shown as low density residential. Should it be changed to allow higher density residential development? 2. The area between the golf course and Sysco. Should the long term land use be passive open space or could there be additional development i.e. industrial or golf course? 3. The area south and east of Ardan Park. Could that area be developed for additional residential uses? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission complete its review of the draft land use element and discuss the process to review the plan with the City Council. N:IDATAIG ROU PS\COMDEVIPLANCOMM1110- 7- 98.MEM Goals and Policies The following will be the land use goals and policies for the City of Mounds View: GENERAL LAND USE Goal 1: Maintain a cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatibility and functional relationships between activities and uses. Policies: a. Relate land use development to transportation needs, desired development and community priorities. b. Analyze all development proposals on an individual basis from a physical, economic, and a social standpoint to determine the most appropriate uses within the context of the community as a whole as well as the specific area of the site. c. Av mallaaatian f us pas.- ncourage and maintain a balance of use types, d. Accomplish transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses in an orderly fashion which does not create negative economic, social, or physical impact on adjoining developments. e. Consider subdivision of existing large lot single residential lots on a case-by-case basis to ensure development is consistent with community needs and compatible with surrounding development, f. The City will maintain comprehensive subdivision regulations governing platting procedures, site design standards, public and and requirements, engineering standards and specifications, required improvements, and other factors dealing with the proper subdivision of land. a integrated use districts (residential neighborhoods, commercial centers. industrial parks) from penetration by through traffic. Where through traffic problems are identified, correct such problems as opportunities arise. .o : maintain ast44-v4aFe naaessaty, u ade-land -ases d environmental l ; a —Pr t egr- d u-se- disi cts esid-entia eighiaorhQads o i hatters; -lnel str l pars) in-pene ticnrb thro b ff - re-t aro gh- ff rofalems°are -ider f e -Gerr s h pc-obi/am as°oppor iti s ar se Goal -3-2: Preserve and protect property values. Policy: as Tf�i r will work to irri prove ter redevelop bli_ kited properties to enhance the tax base of individual sites and to protect and improve the tax base of the surrounding area, Goal-4-3: Ensure that community development is compatible with features of the natural environment and is accommodated without destroying desirable environmental features and natural amenities. Policies.: a. Development shall be prohibited on wetlands, flood plains, and other natural features that perform important public protection functions in their natural state. b. Prohibit development on shore lands, wetlands, flood plains, and other natural features that perform important environmental functions in their natural state. Where desirable and practical, maintain such natural features in a condition for appropriate recreational uses. c. Development must respect the natural hydrology and unique features of the land to the maximum extent. d. Encourage the preservation of trees and natural vegetation where possible. Goal 4-4: Prevent development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive and service facilities (utilities, parking, access, etc.). Policies: a. Ensure that intensification of land use activity and development is accompanied by sufficient corresponding increase in related supportive and service facilities such as parks, of street parking, surface water management, etc. b. Ensure that high density development has reasonable, but not necessarily direct access to major thoroughfares. RESIDENTIAL Goal t: Provide safe, healthy and attractive residential environments which offer a broad and full choice of housing opportunities. Policies: a. Consider the development of additional single family attached homes to supplement conventional single family detached homes, mobile homes, and apartments. b. Confine higher density, apartment type housing in proximity to areas which offer a wide range of existing supportive service; major service and commercial centers, parks, playgrounds, schools and other similar uses. c. Ensure that all new housing, including housing affordable to low and moderate income families and individuals, adheres to the highest community design, planning, and construction standards. d. Encourage "life cycle" housing to provide various housing options. Goal 2: Preserve the identity and improve the quality and appearance of existing neighborhoods. Policie: a. High density housing shall be located within easy access of a major thoroughfare so as not to introduce an excessive amount of vehicular traffic onto residential streets. b. A major consideration for approval or denial daily proposed apartment project will be the compatibility with surrounding land uses. c. High density housing shall not be placed or utilized specifically as a buffer or use capable of absorbing negative impacts. d. Medium density single family attached housing ie- premed° may be used in transitional areas between single family detached residential neighborhoods and high density residential development. e. The existing character of low density neighborhoods shall be maintained and preserved by preventing encroachment from higher use types and by buffering the neighborhoods from other types of land use. Some redevelopment of low density uses on the fringe of these neighborhoods may befog-aired-used to provide thsess buffering. f. Substandard housing shall be rehabilitated or redeveloped through private means and/or public assistance. g. Substandard housing shall be removed when it is judged not economically feasible to correct deficiencies. Renta t -lious icig- shall -§ praded.te-rega r q a ®pfeof -in as -will ae adequate.o € d- landseafring% +h. Residential amenities required by zoning and subdivision regulations shall be properly maintained. }i. The housing maintenance code shall be uniformly enforced in order to protect the health and safety of occupants and ensure the ongoing stability of residential neighborhoods. 1 j. Protect residential neighborhoods from penetration by through traffic. 4k. Protect residential developments from adverse, FilaElfiladas environmental impacts, including noise, air, and visual pollution. 4l ,v l-develop r s ll-6 re iibit l-whci Weis and, air-pa dop d-standar.ds €1,..tl e re not-GoFfee.tab-le-by-Gon6tpaotiott-sitellamaingraftel- --ether-tesliniques, _! Prohibit commercial development within designated residential areas ei hbefh d c eroia uges&h id i eAlerid. ao.necagSaizy Huh ity rraty-o -- aeighlmorl dst o rr sreial a is-adequate...). Goal 3: Provide sufficient housing and sufficient housing sizes, types and styles to meet the needs of all segments of the population including groups with specialized housing needs such as low and moderate income and the elderly. Policies: a. The development and preservation of r owner - occupied housing for low and moderate income households shall be encouraged. b. Housing for low and moderate income families and individuals should not be concentrated within a single project or area. ®E courage Iefir r t t td8. both-sxi,si m- aslat te-h sag- witlin.a s4.ngie-pJa edar id t - gnee Ufa ge- the use att ckla c.hed .gla - uire .fer family -su d' ---. astablii.h "vim eJ c hani w iG44 -wi - -fa litatehhe -d of-lowan i4c s d ppec t g-li s g e �c. When providing low and moderate income housing, priority should be given to Mounds View residents to the extent possible. . Th ha4.l- s re ha all iag ssig i ss niat} agi dents, -� d. Utilize the City newsletter, local news media, and the city website to inform residents of housing program availability. °h +Iti+ize-MetropolitanOng a -Red ela a -A tther Miw to i e r atn s a-pess la- to-previ °ho sing-appo ni.ties. r-lo a d- moderot nor -persons. -e. Minimize administrative costs of housing programs through utilization of non -City staff (i.e. state and regional agency staff, private institution staff, etc.) Goal 4: Encourage a creative approach to the use of land and related residential development. Policies: a. Encourage design and planning innovations in both housing and land development and redevelopment. T-ransitiona4 zones-shall- bufferdistinotly -di ens ies af- -boas Consider inns ation -in b4ivision dosign-an4houoing- -development- 4. -Res 4e a eigh ootis should-heial and d el as. units with-ralatecirbtit - comfnenia -AGRes& te4Figjec sees - wig- be-eoc raged- thery-ef-- -xesa dentiol.neighbo hoods - AH.-new ihg c.iudanng- rectal- heosingrshall -adhe to-the - ighe.stigossihle rd& of-planningrdasigh,..and-constaniction, b. All types of housing will be considered, provided each is properly located according to the Comprehensive Plan and the site plans and structural quality are in accordance with the applicable City codes. Goal 5: Protect residential land uses which are impacted by noise in the vicinity of the Anoka County Airport. Policy: a. Develop close and continuing liaison with the Metropolitan Airports Commission in the planning process for the Anoka County Airport to provide mitigation of noise impacts through ad-ustment of flight atterns o erationai than es and the sound proofing of residential homes. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting September 16, 1998 Mounds yiliw City Hall 2401 Highway 10, nds,Vliw, MN 55112 Call to Order Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View PlanningA 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call n Special M Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioner Brasaenir and Obert. ovo.,.. i - Members absent: Commissioner Stevensonjand COLIETC11 .,0`,'.1W .„, ....., .........:. ,#F. Also present: Community Developnalbirectc(Ack Jopke; Planning Associate Jim Ericson; ..0; and Recorder Dave Hix. -r at qfr Johnson, Miller, -,c1gpmeiners. .-1-..A>ik Index to nit es 1' A , .,. In lk, Planning Case,.: V *\..,-98 elilsote190 of resolution No. 556-98, a .Nrck: Resolution Apikp..7.- '- Vai iang*V1 /for a Sidewalk, -..---.,_:::,,v 5249 Greenfiel '' ' iiiii , Timothy Whit Planning. C a:;o: 576'-9 :'.consideration of Resolution No. 560-98, a .,, Resolution Approving a 4/4Variance Request to Allow a Joint Use Parking angccess Arrangemenabetween the Businesses and a Zero-Foot Parking Se tback, 2200 & 2214,#ighway 10 (Mermaid and Perkins, respectively), rite Hall, repr esenag the Mermaid .„:.:..:, PI ' Case No 535-98, Consideration of Resolution No 558-98, a ResMitogiSproving a Variance to Allow for two Curb Cuts, 8111 Eastwood Road, Michael Tobias Page 2 3 4 PLANNING COMMISSION September 16, 1998 Page 2 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizens' requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Planning Case No. 533 -98 Property Involved: 5249 Greenfield Avenue Consideration of Resolution No. 556 -98, A Resolution = ='P'variance R Sidewalk. Applicant: Timothy White The applicant, Timothy White, was present. Associate Ericson gave his report as follows The applicant was back before the Planning Commission a ft p.,0: n0 : ime after his original request had been tabled. At the September 2, 1998 Plar j ing Comm sion meeting, significant discussion was held regarding the merits of this f lise as ell as the in rpretation of the language in the Code relating to setbacks. Because of ny factor possibl - rdships), such as the slope of the land north of the rage, safety considerations andlack o c'cess elsewhere on the lot, the Planning Commissi . , . - d to tablet o uaest to enable` ta to draft both approval and denial versions of the resoltrtn . Staff was recot� that the nn Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution 556-98, a Resol itio Ap roving a r Fance for Timothy White of 5249 Greenfield Avenue, to allow for a ...-,§1W.0--, uced side r `=setback` for a deck -like sidewalk. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions of staff. suggested the foliowing amendment to the Resolution: Add to the first WHEREAS the dent riptive notes that , ncson had included in Section (a) under the staff report Analysis. She also scirggAted . addinwverbiage that stated leveling of the sidewalk on the north side of the garage was not ` os `bI au to exposure of the garage footings. Obert stated the hardships that were being discussed were really not hardships but conditions that were brought on by the property owner. He voiced his opposition to the stated hardships and expressed his concern that the City was allowing too many variances for work that had been done without first applying for the proper work permits. PLANNING COMMISSION September 16, 1998 Page 3 MOTION /SECOND: Brooks/Miller to approve Resolution No. 556 -98, A Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk, as amended, 5249 Greenfield Avenue, Timothy White. VOTE: Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 5. Planning Case No. 536 -98 Property Involved: 2200 & 2214 Highway 10 (Mermaid Pe Consideration of resolution No. 560 -98, a Resolution A Joint Use Parking and Access Arrangement between the Setback. Applicant: Daniel Hall, representing the Mermaid . .... r«. ;, vip Mot , carri rid , respective a Variance Requ - 40-Allow a and a Zero -Foot Parking Lot The applicant, Daniel Hall, was present. Associate Ericson gave his report as follois: The applicant was requesting a v ' from t~ required :.I`ve -foot setback established for parking lots in a business district he parkin of for th Mermaid has been expanded and resurfaced it accordance wi" the developrnen pt ns submitted to and approved by the City on May 11, 1;, 1' t was disco e ��fter the fa �t`he development plans were in error (off by approxi n feet) r chtt the parkingylot north of the building as constructed encroaches i cequtred side- ar'setback and in one area crosses the property line onto the Perkins propet��" To compensate the s p operty, the Mermaid has opened a secondary access drive between the twc trsinesses, comple g the existing joint access. This access will serve to improve circulation between the sites and to improve the safety of Mermaid patrons by diverting Perkins tra to the rear of the l ermaid. In addition, representatives from both properties have entered ina joint use agreement, such that both properties are protected in the event either use or ownership should change. The City will require that a cross - access and shared parking easement � et ith Rarn ey'County to legitimize the arrangement. This document is being drafted by �Y�d^x, til th+e 1. Staff was recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution No, 560 -98, a Resolution Approving a Variance for a Zero -Foot Setback for a Parking Lot, on Properties Located at 2200 & 2214 highway 10. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions of staff. PLANNING COMMISSION September 16, 1998 Page 4 Miller asked if the island between the two parking lots would remain. Dan Hall, told the Commission the island would remain "as is." Obert recommended adding that final approval be contingent yt, on execu`,,%N. And recordation of the easement document. MOTION /SECOND: Obert/Brasaemle to approve Reso Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Joint Use Par Businesses and a Zero -Foot Parking Lot Setback, Daniel Hall representing the Mermaid. VOTE: Ayes - 6 6e Planning Case No. 535 -98 Property Involved: 8111 Eastwood Roa;' Consideration of Resolution No 5588a Resohition apprO frig a Variance to Allow for two Curb Cuts. Michael Tobias n n h1tway 10, 4. The apple hiot present. Associate Enos€ i The applicant was requesttn variance from the Code requirement that states a single- family ro pert F >, P shall be [invited d ;0ne curb cut. Earlier this year, the applicant took out a building perm to resurface his dr i ew y, which had access onto both Sherwood Road and Eastwood Road; At that time staff indicated that a building permit could not be approved due to the nonconforming nature o the driveway, unless the access to Sherwood Road was removed. The nt agreed andst e permit was issued. Subsequent reinspection of the property showed that access points remained, both having been improved contrary to the permit. The applicant tot €,.: thing that they had two alternatives to resolve the situation: 1. Remove the driveway access to Sherwood Road 2. Apply for and receive a variance The applicant chose to apply for a variance in order to maintain the driveway in its present condition. PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 September 16, 1998 To understand the predominance of the type of driveway configuration present at 8111 Eastwood Road, staff surveyed corner properties north of Hiliview between Groveland and Long Lake Road. There are 54 corner lots in this area, of which ten (18,5 percent) have multi 'curb cuts. In comparison, the percentage of all residential properties with more than cud cut is less than one percent. Corner properties present unique safety issues, with as mr distinct paths of traffic to monitor while backing out of the driveway. Some t er lots, f tree cover, shrubs and other plantings, have limited visibility thereby ' -asing the,: The applicant hired an asphalt company to do the require reconstruction work. The contractor read and was awa 't rivewa 'demolition .`y ity's request thafb cut s ruithat the contractor made an onto Sherwood Road was to be removed. It was the opine error in not removing the curb cut as requested by the Citain, contract that the Tobias family had with the contractor: r Staff gave no recommendation but offered the P;lax ing of Resolution No. 558 -98, Approval or Denta spe r mission "e On A" and "Option D" tten into the work A discussion was held in regards t.l<tat constituted maintenance and what constituted reconstruction. The Code allows prove" of e g conditions as long as they are not "expanded." . �. . on that e contractor was aware that the Sherwood Road at1e new work would include a turn around area in place of dimensions and quoted prices for the work. Obert state there was %no ha dship to justify the variance. He added, the problem that the property owner now facesk, a : nought on by an error made by the contractor and the contractor is the who should be responsible for correcting the error, with no charge to the home owner. 1VlIION /SECOND: a °asaemle/Miller to approve Resolution No. 558 -98 "Option D" Denial of *lance for Two Crb Cuts, as amended, 8111 Eastwood Road, Michael Tobias. Ayes -6 7. Staff Reports/Information Items A. Highway 10 Design Theme Director Jopke gave his report as follows: Nays - 0 Motion carried PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 September I6, 1998 A visual presentation was made using concept plans that had been developed by the Hoisington Koegler Group, the City's design consultant with input from various Commission and City staff personnel. The Consultant had used the Theme "Woods and Wetland." This themes ties use ri components of the "Mainstreet" theme which used neighborhood roads to� _:n' t e community to the "main corridor." �, • The Council has asked the staff to draft a design impleme,::a on repo potential funding for the project's $3 million plus budget taffis recciment Highway 10 Corridor Project be included in the City's C prehe Plan Up B. Theater Project Update Director Jopke gave his report as follows: A Development Agreement has been executed vii Developer have agreed to "work together" tox opening of the theater before the signalize „ ready. SEH has been given authorization o complfe the gn for this signalized intersection, which will also service t ity's N: " Cominia fy Center. Al y Propertie1 ' e City and the �i lvre a &lad ,roblems that may result from ntersection at oar 0 and Edgewood Road is One or two of the office building' Plans and specification for t at are pf the elopment may be built on a "spec" basis. 'dings j , � oming from the developer earlier in the C. Director Jopke; September 28, 1998 is tlie: this Dvelopment AgreeMe rt as follows: et bate for the Development Agreement on this project. As part of :e City would provide $1.7 million in TIT assistance to the dev e oper. These funds Would cover site improvements and acquisition of the land other than the Rent -All site on the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. The City would be solely s'sible for acquttg the Rent -All site and relocating the business, a sum of approximately 0. Staffs r e—ntly in the application process for a Minnesota Department of Trade and €tte t giant hich will, if successfully awarded, offset some of the costs of this project. ro.tvit °'leas also expressed very strong interest in developing the Rent -All site as a possible Park & Ride. If this project goes forward there is a potential that the Metro Transit will share in some if not a large portion of the funds necessary to complete the project. D. Greenfield Ponds Tax Forfeit Properties PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 September 16, 1998 Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: Ramsey County has notified the City of the availability of tax forfeited properti properties that are located within the Greenfield Pond Subdivision, the Ii stad properties were identified as Outlot A (the entire wetland are located on the unimproved Edgewood Drive. The City curt the entirety of the wetland, Outlot A and B and part of L .A for its opinion in regards to the City purchasing any or a would be to acquire a $200 "Use Deed" from the Couna rights to utilize the property for a specific purpose, i.e., corrections is the only buildable lot. es. , Outlot„,, has • peg Staff w f the probes. hich w A ere are three division. The t 3 which are asement over ommissioi Id give th of 3, with exte Obert stated the property should be left available for primate de Peterson stated the "Use Deed" would be the best,opti n Ericson stated staff would verify that there 10. " no need fo gtite A in terms of additional drainage, mitigation, or for any other reason. If th City dof et�}tave a need for the properties then a recommendation to "pass" on Chproperti s swill be forwarded to the Council. S. Chairperson and Manny' Commi :s"oners' R ports (The RI ctfully subn itte = CS� e Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson adjourned immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Rick Jopke Community Development Director MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1998 7:00 P.M. AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. September 16, 1998 b. October 7, 1998 2. StaffReports/Information Items a. Update of Properties with Nuisance Code Violations b. Continued Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Housing Element 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports N:IDATA\GROUPSICOMDE VI PLANCOMM IPCAGENDA11998110- 21- 98,AGN PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2401 Highway 10, Special Meeting September 16, 1998 Mounds ,, City Hall ew, MN 55112 L Call to Order Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View Plannin 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Special r at Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commis rasae 4 Johnson, Miller, and Obert. Members absent: Commissioner Stevens Also present: Community Develop and Recorder Dave Hix. meiners. Planning Associate Jim Ericson; Index to s �Fh. �>, - Page Planning C Resolution Ap 5249 Gree of resolution No. 556 -98, a 2 or a Sidewalk, Planni Res ase No. 536- ion Approving a ccess Arrangement ck, 2200 & 2214: Hall, represe g eration of Resolution No. 560 -98, a ce Request to Allow a Joint Use Parking etween the Businesses and a Zero -Foot Parking ghway 10 (Mermaid and Perkins, respectively), the Mermaid l e g W . 535 -98, Consideration of Resolution No. 558 -98, a Re v pproving a Variance to Allow for two Curb Cuts, 8111 Eastwood Road, Michael Tobias 3 4 PLANNING COMMISSION September 16, 1998 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizens' requests or comments on items not on the agenda. Page 2 4. Planning Case No 533 -98 Property Involved: 5249 Greenfield Avenue Consideration of Resolution No. 556 -98, A Resolution Sidewalk. Applicant: Timothy White The applicant, Timothy White, was present. Associate Ericson gave his report as follow The applicant was back before the Pia had been tabled. At the September was held regarding the merits of relating to setbacks. Because of north of the „;• age, safety Comnuss'$;: ` ; d to to the reso Staff was reco 556 -98, a Re allow for Cha' back Fme after his original request sion meeting, significant discussion rpretation of the language in the Code dships), such as the slope of the land cess elsewhere on the lot, the Planning to draft both approval and denial versions of ommission adopt Planning Commission Resolution ce for Timothy White of 5249 Greenfield Avenue, to or a deck -like sidewalk. e floor to the Commission for questions of staff. wing amendment to the Resolution: Add to the first WHEREAS the cson had included in Section (a) under the staff report Analysis. She also age that stated leveling of the sidewalk on the north side of the garage was exposure of the garage footings. Obert stated the hardships that were being discussed were really not hardships but conditions that were brought on by the property owner. He voiced his opposition to the stated hardships and expressed his concern that the City was allowing too many variances for work that had been done without first applying for the proper work permits. PLANNING COMMISSION September 16, 1998 Page 3 MOTION /SECOND: Brooks/Miller to approve Resolution No. 556 -98, A Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk, as amended, 5249 Greenfield Avenue, Timothy White. VOTE: Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 5. Planning Case No. 536 -98 Property Involved: 2200 & 2214 Highway 10 (Mermai Consideration of resolution No. 560 -98, a Resolution A Joint Use Parking and Access Arrangement between the Setback. Applicant: Daniel Hall, representing the Mermaid Mot' respectiv Variance Requ =' l low a and a Zero -Foot Parking Lot The applicant, Daniel Hall, was present. Associate Ericson gave his report as fol The applicant was requesting a v parking lots in a business district resurfaced ccordance May 11, approxi encroaches Perkins prope t was d' feet uired from e par evelop er the ve -foot setback established for ermaid has been expanded and miffed to and approved by the City on e development plans were in error (off by he parking lot north of the building as constructed tback and in one area crosses the property line onto the To comp the tw circ tr to sinesses, corgi on between the to the rear of the joint use agree hip should c th R erty, e Mermaid has opened a secondary access drive between the existing joint access. This access will serve to improve to improve the safety of Mermaid patrons by diverting Perkins rmaid. In addition, representatives from both properties have entered , such that both properties are protected in the event either use or e. The City will require that a cross - access and shared parking easement County to legitimize the arrangement. This document is being drafted by Staff was recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 560 -98, a Resolution Approving a Variance for a Zero -Foot Setback for a Parking Lot, on Properties Located at 2200 & 2214 highway 10. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions of staff PLANNING COMMISSION September 16, 1998 Miller asked if the island between the two parking lots would remain. Dan Hall, told the Commission the island would remain "as is." Obert recommended adding that final approval be contingent the easement document. Page 4 on exe "'d. recordation of MOTION /SECOND: ObertBrasaemle to approve Res Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Joint Use P the Businesses and a Zero-Foot Parking Lot Setback, Daniel Hall representing the Mermaid. VOTE: Ayes - 6 6. Planning Case No. 535 -98 Property Involved: 8111 Eastwood Ro Consideration of Resolution No. 55 Curb Cuts. Applicant: Michael Tobias Nays -98, ess Arrang n for2200 &22 ay10, The app Associate Eric The appli grope pe R as re all be limite o resurface his d At that time st nforming nature t agreed an g a Variance to Allow for two ariance from the Code requirement that states a single - family e curb cut. Earlier this year, the applicant took out a building which had access onto both Sherwood Road and Eastwood dicated that a building permit could not be approved due to the he driveway, unless the access to Sherwood Road was removed. The permit was issued. Subsequent reinspection of the property showed that ained, both having been improved contrary to the permit. The applicant ting that they had two alternatives to resolve the situation: l . Remove the driveway access to Sherwood Road 2. Apply for and receive a variance The applicant chose to apply for a variance in order to maintain the driveway in its present condition. PLANNING COMMISSION September 16, 1998 Page 5 To understand the predominance of the type of driveway configuration present at 8111 Eastwood Road, staff surveyed corner properties north of Hillview between Groveland and Long Lake Road. There are 54 corner lots in this area, of which ten (18.5 percent) have multi urb cuts. In comparison, the percentage of all residential properties with more tha e c one percent. Corner properties present unique safety issues, traffic to monitor while backing out of the driveway. Som shrubs and other plantings, have limited visibility thereby The applicant hired an asphalt company to do the requi reconstruction work. The contractor read and was aw onto Sherwood Road was to be removed. It was the op error in not removing the curb cut as requested by the C contract that the Tobias family had with the contracto .th as m er lo asing the cut is less than distinct paths of f tree cover, rive _ :"� emolition ity's request tha ". cut that the contractor made an tten into the work Staff gave no recommendation but offered the of Resolution No. 558 -98, Approval or De Chairperson Peterson returned the floor A" and "Option D" tons of staff A discussion was held in regards t d #:'ted m h` ance and what constituted reconstruction. The Code allow _ prove " of e' g conditions as long as they are not "expanded." It was t curb cut w the old drivew ion that x`e contractor was aware that the Sherwood Road new work would include a turn around area in place of dimensions and quoted prices for the work. Obert star hip to justify the variance. He added, the problem that the prope er now f ught on by an error made by the contractor and the contractor is th a who should b ` ible for correcting the error, with no charge to the home owner. aemle/Mi ler to approve Resolution No. 558 -98 "Option D" Denial of Cuts, as amended, 8111 Eastwood Road, Michael Tobias. Ayes -6 7. Staff Reports/Information Items A. Highway 10 Design Theme Director Iopke gave his report as follows: Nays - 0 Motion carried • PLANNING COMMISSION September 16, 1998 Page 6 A visual presentation was made using concept plans that had been developed by the Hoisington Koegler Group, the City's design consultant with input from various Commission and City staff personnel. The Consultant had used the Theme "Woods and Wetland." This the components of the "Mainstreet" theme which used neighborhood roads the "main corridor." The Council has asked the staff to draft a design impleme potential funding for the project's $3 million plus budget Highway 10 Corridor Project be included in the City's B. Theater Project Update Director Jopke gave his report as follows: A Development Agreement has been executed Developer have agreed to "work together" t opening of the theater before the signaliz ready. SEH has been given authorizati intersection, which will also service es use community to lore e e Plan Up One or two of the office buildin: at are Plans and sp cification for t „e 'Wings fall. C. I/Banq Update Director Jopk e City and the at may result from and Edgewood Road is for this signalized Center. opment may be built on a "spec" basis. oming from the developer earlier in the Septe $ 28, 1998 is Q '' . ate for the Development Agreement on this project. As part of this elopment Agree " City would provide $1.7 million in TIF assistance to the de $ per These funds .0 °s cover site improvements and acquisition of the land, other than the All site on the co r of Highway 10 and County Road H. The City would be solely sible for acqu' the Rent -All site and relocating the business, a sum of approximately . St " ' ently in the application process for a Minnesota Department of Trade and which will, if successfully awarded, offset some of the costs of this project. as also expressed very strong interest in developing the Rent -All site as a possible Park & Ride. If this project goes forward there is a potential that the Metro Transit will share in some if not a large portion of the funds necessary to complete the project. 11 Greenfield Ponds Tax Forfeit Properties PLANNING COMMISSION September 16, 1998 Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: Ramsey County has notified the City of the availability of tax forfeited properties. properties that are located within the Greenfield Pond Subdivision, the tad properties were identified as Outlot A (the entire wetland are. Outlo located on the unimproved Edgewood Drive. The City cu - has the entirety of the wetland, Outlot A and B and part of L Staff w for its opinion in regards to the City purchasing any or f the pro es. would be to acquire a $200 "Use Deed" from the Cou hich • ld give th rights to utilize the property for a specific purpose, i.e., of 3, with exte corrections is the only buildable lot. Page 7 re are three division. The t 3 which are asement over ornmissio do Obert stated the property should be left available for p Peterson stated the "Use Deed" would be the b Ericson stated staff would verify that ther drainage, mitigation, or for any other re then a recommendation to "pass" o 8e Chairperson and Plan : Comm' No report r conside 9. A 3 3 Es to Agv,r� a ..N .ng orts s in terms of additional ave a need for the properties arded to the Council. e There being n. �r ess be # e Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meet' immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Rick Jopke Community Development Director PROCEEDINGS Of THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2401 Highway 10, L Call to Order Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View Plannin 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Regular Meeting October 7, 1998 Mounds City Hall nds.ew, MN 55112 Regular ' Fw4..L* • er at Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commis rasae arrived 7:05), Johnson, Miller, Obert, and Stevenson. Members absent: Council Liaison Koop Also present: Community Develop~ irecte ' 'ck Joy `, Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Housing Inspector Steve Dorgan, 3. Cie s' Requests ��' +�nanen ;F3'at on the Agenda There J ns rep o- = .mments on items not on the agenda. 4. Appro A (Special) (Regular) B. aemle/Miller to approve the August 19, 1998 (Special) and September minutes as amended. Ayes ® 6 eports/Information Items Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Housing Element Nays - 0 Motion carried PLANNING COMIVIISSION October 7, 1998 Page 2 It was the consensus of the Commission to move this portion of the meeting to the Agenda Meeting. 6. Chairperson and planning Commissioners Reports No reports were considered. 7. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Co hairperson Pet the meeting at 7:07 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourne�: •the , ,8...$ffi`+ sion) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Directo ourned MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CONMVIISSION NOVEMBER 4,1998 7:00 P.M. REGULAR 1VIEETIN G AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes a. September 16, 1998 b. October 7, 1998 5. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Preliminary Discussion of Parking Variance Request by Donatelles Supper Club at 2400 Highway 10. b. Discussion of City Remnant Parcel. c. Resignation of Planning Commissioner Bobbi Brooks. d. Request for Extension of Comprehensive Plan Submittal Deadline. 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 7. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** APPLICANTS: YOUR Ai b.NDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 7I7 -4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO A FIEND. THANK YOU. ******* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1 Comprehensive Plan Public Facilities Element N:IDATAI CROUPS ICOMDEVIPLANCOMMIPCAGENDA11998\ l 1.4- 98.AGN RJQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: September 16, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 538 -98 Applicant: Donatelles Request: The applicant is requesting a five -foot parking lot setback Location: 2400 Highway 10 PIN Nos. 083023240057 Zoning/Land Use: 13-3, Highway Business District / Restaurant Applicable Regulations: Section 1104.01, Subd. 4c(2): Parking lots shall maintain a thirty -foot setback from the front property line. Section 1121.09, Subd. 7 requires (among other things) that driveways and stalls shall be surfaced with a bituminous material, and that the City shall review site and drainage plans for proposals to surface driveways and stalls for five or more vehicles. Section 1121.09, Subd. 11, requires that all open, off-street parking areas shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot with landscaping provided in all areas bordering parking area. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Attachments: Background: Planning Application Zoning Map Proof of Ownership Letter from Applicant's Representative Site Plan (Separate Attachment) 5 c� The applicant is requesting a variance from the required thirty -foot setback established for parking lots in a business district. The Donatelles parking lot, which has been located in its present location since the 1960s, currently does not meet this requirement. The applicant, in conjunction with the development of the theater site to the north, will be removing its Highway 10 access in return for Donatelie's Variance Planning Case No. 538 -98 November 4, 1998 Page 2 allowing a through access to the theater site. To compensate Donatelles for this concession, the theater developer has offered to resurface, curb and gutter the parking lot, as shown on the attached plans dated 10/21/98. In three separate areas on the Donatelles site, the extent of the parking lot nonconformity will be lessened as pavement will be removed in the setback area and within the right of way itself The existing parking lot and access fronting County Road H2 will not be altered, with the exception of removing forty feet of impervious surface from the access, reducing the overall width of the access from 180 feet to 140 feet. It is expected that the nonconforming County Road H2 access (which is too wide) will be addressed with any future reconstruction of County Road H2. Analysis: The planned improvements to the Donatelles parking lot result from a MnDOT stipulation that requires Donatelles' Highway 10 access be closed in order for the Theater site to have a second Highway 10 access on their property. Donatelles has agreed to the closure of its access on the condition that their customers be able to use the Theater's Highway 10 access to gain entrance to the Donatelles parking lot by means of a throughway between the two properties, and that the Donatelles parking lot be improved and expanded. The plans submitted by the applicant for the parking lot improvements represent a vast improvement over the current state of Donatelles parking area. The parking area, which was constructed more than thirty years ago, did not violate any City setback requirements at the time of its construction. The basis of the hardship, as applied to the Donatelles property, results from the size and shape of the lot, and the fact that it is bordered by streets on two of its three sides. The impact of enforcing the setbacks as they are written in Chapter 1 104 of the Zoning Code to the Donatelles property would create a situation in which that the business could no longer effectively operate. The restaurant would potentially lose 50 of its parking stalls, leaving 25 or less stalls for its clientele. By paving the dirt area at the southeast corner of the lot, closing its Highway 10 access and installing curb and gutter, the restaurant will be able to increase its parking availability while significantly improving the overall appearance of the property as well. Criteria for Granting Variances: (From Chapter 1125 of the City Code.) A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of property owner's land. A variance may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. DonateIle's Variance Planning Case No, 538 -98 November 4, 1998 Page 3 The Donatelles property is a small, unusual pie - shaped lot at the intersection of two major roadways through the City. Being less than an acre in area, the lot without question creates practical difficulties which the present owners did not create. This criterion is met. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. To enforce the thirty-foot parking lot setback onto the Donatelles property after thirty years of operation in its present state would potentially deprive the property of as many as 50 parking stalls. A reduction of spaces by that amount would effectively prohibit the restaurant from operating any further at that location. This criterion is met. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is only seeking to improve the appearance and functionality of the parking lot and to lessen the extent of the nonconformity. The applicant did not create the conditions which necessitate the approval of a variance. This criterion is met. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Donatelles restaurant was one of the first businesses located in the City of Mounds View, a fixture that has continued to do business through four decades to the present. At the time the restaurant was established at its present location, there were no setback requirements. Granting a variance in this situation would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege, in that any property owner in a similar circumstance would be given the same consideration. This criterion is met. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship in that the intent of the request is to lessen the extent of the existing nonconformity and to improve the overall appearance of the property. This criterion is met. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The Zoning Code was not drafted with the intent to prevent a legally conforming business from improving its operation. Granting the requested variance would serve only to Donatelle's Variance Planning Case No. 538 -98 November 4, 1998 Page 4 g. legitimize a dimensional nonconformity which has been in existence for thirty years. This criterion is met. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Granting of this requested variance will improve the flow of traffic in and around this site and will be a benefit to public safety by closing the Highway 10 access from the Donatelles property. No property values will be diminished or impaired as a result of the Donatelles improvements. This criterion is met. Recommendation: Given the information presented and the fact that all criteria for granting a variance are satisfied, it is the recommendation of staff to prepare a resolution approving a variance for reduced parking lot setbacks for the Donatelles property, located 2400 Highway 10. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDE VIDE VCASES1538- 981VARJANCE.RPT Oct. 22 98 04:08p P •`a Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address . Wender1 1 R. Smith 612- 484 -0699 p. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Iighway I0, Mounds View MN 55112 612 -717 -4020 612 - 7843462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Forth dcl y DJ wciov Telephone 60- 7 5Y 7 YG 0 Fax ri!? /,Fe Interest in Property (check appropriate box) Owner of Property 0 Lessee, Operator, Manager 0 Contract for Deed Owner Q Other (explain) ° Agreement to purchase Applicants must provide evidence of interest hi property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the' property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this .application for it to be accepted Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location-' 'Legat Description .. _... _ _ Property Identification *CM. #) # of Acres Current zoning Type of Application • Comprehensive PIan Amendment • Rezoning • • Major Subdivision • Minor Subdivision 6 Planned Unit Development (PUD) • PUD Amendment Q Conditional Use Permit Variance O Code Appeal O Develop Review /Site Plan O Wetland Alteration Permit O WetfandBulferPermit 0. Floodplain Permit O Other 5250 $250 /acre; min $250 max. $1500 $250 + $250 deposit* S200 Refer to rezoning fees $350 R -1, R -2 $75; ail others $250 R -1, R -2 S 100 all others $250 5100 S125/acre; min $125 ntax $750 R -1, R -2 S150; all others $200 R -1, R -2 $25; all others $1.00 5200 • *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant stall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (3O).days after consideration of the application is completed. Oct 22 98 ®4o 33p • ►1 Io .-Y a' .rieni.ik flea Pasant Usk ofPropez, ' 0 Undeveloped/vacant „- Duplex/ Two Family Dwelling. BusinessiCominernial . Establishment Other (explain) Weride11 R. Smith S12 °484 -0593 Single Family Dwelling to Multi-family Dwelling. 4 industrial Estalaiishmeat a Form B Y MY (OUR) SIGNAL TJRE.ON THIS APPLICATION, r HEREBY DECLARE THE BEST OF M� KNOWLED INFORMQTION PRO VIDED IS LT AND U RdTr Sigoature.of Applicant L..; 17 Name of- Applicant (typed/printed) ,Signaturt of Property Owner Nat$e_ofPrope1yOy c. (typed/printed) of Owner Phone Number of Owner ‘-a riY42,4?Cri ** * * * * * * * *** *****k Yt *ik ## ek****** * *** * *** * *+ art ** ** 4,4.41***R**** * *** ** * **k * #*oM+k**** * * **** * *+ *** o _ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Assigned to: 6O-d$y Lunit ��_ 120 -day limit Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance • Planning Case No. Application: Paric.Drdication: Deposits: Other, Total: Fern Paid: Nal- ATA1GROUPitcoMDENAFOR.MS]D. VAPP,FOR Account # Check # F.3 Pa c • 7521 7505 7520 7504 Cat 7511 7501 01 N N can 1- N (0 5250 524 MIER 5238 II 523 523 1126 BE 5231..;5226. ialh 5220 521 ....:...... LANE ‘Z1 d- �°▪ n 521 N N 5260 u7 N N Cst cp N 0, CLEARV1EW N (0 1- N 0 N N tO N M- ED (0 (0' N co 0 01 N o N N N 0 Pi (0 N r'7 �L} N • N CV , • N ▪ hi (V t• '! N 5290 5299 5280 528 5270 5279 5250 5269 5250 5254C 5240 5249 5230 5239 w 5220 5229 5210 5219 97nn �7na Zoning Map Planning Case 538 -98 Applicant: Donatelles Location: 2400 Highway 10 �4 Oct 22 9e 04 :09p Wendell R. Smith is Wendell R. Smith «nmeraal Real Eshafe Development, Ga suking and Brokerage . October 22, 1998 Mr. Tim Ericson. Associate Planner City of Mounds View 2401 lEghway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55 112 RE: Setback Variance for Donatelle's Supper Club Dear Mr. Ericson: 612 °484 -0699 As a representative of Donatelle's, I am requesting the ability to put in curbs and gutters along Highway 10, closing off the access point to Highway 10, and paving the section of the property that is now dirt. 1 understand that in order to do this, I will need a variance on the front yard setback As you know, I also represent Anthony Properties, who is developing the theater site. In order to get a new signalized. intersection, Anthony Properties and the City were required to have access onto County Road 1-1-2. Also, the state required that in order to have the second access to Highway 10, which is closest to Donatelle's, we would have to have Donatelle's agree to close their existing access. In the past months; Donatelle's has agreed to close off their access point and Anthony Properties has agreed to give Donatelle's access to the new proposed access point to Highway 10. In doing so, we have agreed to put in the curb and gutter along the highway, close offthe - access point, pave the area of the parking lot that is now dirt and move their sign- to the northwest corner of their property. You have the site plan that shows these changes. I understand that in order to .do this, we will need a variance approved by the Planning Commissinn. Therefore, I have attached an application for the variance, along with a check for $250. I understand that the setback for the.frout yard is 30 feet. The existing parking lot is now 5 feet from the highway right of way. By moving any curbing or parking back to meet the 120 Josephine Rd. • Roseville, hN 55113 • (6:2)4.84 -5 FAN • Email - W5r1111- 10Porg,cons • p.4 Oct 22 98 04:09p Wendell R. Smith 812- 484 -0899 p.5 current code, you. would have to go all the way to the comer of the building and would lose parking ina project that needs as much parking as they can get. It would truly be a hardship for Donatelle's to have to meet the current code requirements. The new owners of Donatelle's are cleaning up the looks of the building. Recently they have painted the outside and are now in the process of putting on a new roof . By putting in the curbs and gutters along the highway and paving the dirt parking area, this will be a positive improvement to their image, while increasing the safety of their patrons. Just as 'um by allowing us to put in these improvements, and granting Donatelle's a variance,. it will allow us to close off an existing access that is somewhat dangerous and very close to the intersection of County Road 11-2 and _Highway 10. Also in closing the existing access,. Minnesota DOT will allow a second access -onto }lghway 10 from the Anthony project. This new ar2-ecs will be further from the intersection and will have a deceleration lane_ This second access from the Autbon property exit onto y Y Pr p�3' will allow more traffic H[ighw$ 10 instead of the exit onto H -2. If the theater project does not get the second exit, then we can be assured that there will be more people using the H -2 exit. We believe that this is.a win win, situation for all parties. This includes the City, Donatelle's, Anthony Properties, and the neighbors who .live south of the project. We are hopefid that the Planning Commission will also see the value of the variance we are requesting, Mr. Ericson, if you need any fiurther information, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Wendell R. Smith . indlraduel Sonar No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required , 19 County Auditor Ei y Deputy (reserved for mortoaoe (a:pistry tax payment data) Mb flo,QIa UMaa1N C .•e„ „ LI,Jd$ hirer (reserved lor recording data) MORTGAGE REGISTRY TAX DUE HEREON: Date. ! l 1 tit•eA n , 19 98 THIS CONTRACT FOR DEED is made on the above dale by Edward A. Donacelle and Linda Donacelle husband and wife (marital status) Seller (whether one or more), and llurri cane (eat Propery iP4. I.LP , Purchaser (whether one or more). Seller and Purchaser agree to the following terms: 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. Seller hereby sells, and Purchaser hereby buys, real property in Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: That part of the SE I/4 of the Nod 1/4 of Section 3. Township 30, Range 23 lying Southwesterly of Trunk highway 010, Ramsey, County, Minnesota logerher with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto (the Property). 2. TITLE. Seller warrants that title to the Property is, on the date of this contract, subjec: only to the following exceptions: ._ (a) Covenants, conditions, restrictions, declarations and easements of record, if any; (b) Reservations of minerals or mineral rights by the State of Minnesota, if any (c) Building, zoning and subdivision laws and regulations; (d) The lien of real estate taxes and installments of special assessments which are payable by Purch- aser pursuant to paragraph 6 of this contract; and (e) The following liens or encumbrances: None 3. DELIVERY OF DEED AND EVIDENCE OP TITLE. Upon Purchaser's prompt and full performance of this contract, Seiler shall: (a) Execute, acknowledge and deliver to Purchaser a l4arranty Deed. in recordable farm, conveying marketable title to the Property to Purchaser, subject only to the fol- lowing exceptions: (i) Those exceptions referred to in paragraph 2(a). (b), (c) and (4) of this contract: (ii) Liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters which Purchaser leas created, suffered or nernrilled to accrue after the dale of This contract: and n. I11ti\littvPOS. Ileadtligs of Ilse parltgl..•■■r., :1t itith cowl uct Inc INI .,r.tveltl4:., u.,,; :NOT Ito Io+I limit or c u sIrtte the contents of such paragraphs. 19. ASSESSMENTS BY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION. If the Property is subject to a recorded declaration providing for assessments to be levied against die Property by any owners' association, which assess- ments Inay become a lien against the Property if not paid, then: (a) Purchaser shall promptly pay, when due, all assessments imposed by the owners' association ur other governing body as required by the provisions of the declaration or other related documents; and (b) So lung as the owners' association maintains a master or blanket policy of insurance against fire. extended coverage perils and such oilier hazards and in such amounts as are required by this con- tract, then: (ii Purchaser's obligation in this contract to maintain hazard insurance coverage on the Property is satisfied; and (ii) The provisions in paragraph 8 of this contract regarding application of insurance proceeds shall be superseded by the provisions of the declaration or other related documents; and (iii) In the event of a distribution of insurance proceeds in lieu of restoration or repair following an insured casualty loss to the Property, any such proceeds payable to Purchaser are hereby as- signed and Shall be paid to Seller for application to the sum secured by this contract, with the excess, if any, paid to Purchaser. 2tl. ADDITIONAL TERMS: See Attached Exhibit A SE .j..ER(S) Edward A. Donacelle ✓�L' inda Donate e State of Minnesota County of i9rt ri �Jok- fa PURCHASER(S) .IiUBI(LCANg CEAL PROPER I[ S r T.LI' LV/ /ii Ab e fi = The foregoing inotrulflent wus acknowledged before me this •3(r ay of _ , IJ , by W D A. DONA'FELLE AND LINDA DONATELLE husband and wife NOTARIAL. STAMP. OR REAL. IOR (1T1IER TITLE OR RANKI eMATIIMAYSVARNIN. tflM fl OOUGLA;, J, OEHN ti i'u .ue -P111110501'.1. My CORM. tip. Jan. ]1. ".7.:1" State of �j��Minnesota County of " i`I' °s ''\ ff. SIGNATURE OF No -r"5 AUat.JC a7R OTHER OFFICIAL The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this3rj day of `April tg 98 by e e er of Hurricane Ceal Pro ernes ted iiabilit artnershio under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the partnership f11e -,ll NOTARIAL. S7AAIr OR SEM. [OR OTHER TIT1-E OR RANKI DOUGLAS J. DEHN WI:NW PIJCUC - r.mr:rtesQTA My Comin. tan. Jen. 31.2020 11119 INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED 05 {NAME AND ARDRESS1 Craig A. Erickson, Esq. C1lestnuc & Brooks, P.A. J700 Piper Jaffrey Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 SII:NA 1Tl HF, ilP' NOYA i'URfJ ;MGR IfT11E tL - Ta: scar tor to ND poRK015 anal bad labile itsUament shooed be salt lay S)bq �r'Ta^ry /t`1oV,ots )is W,1 %'1N S I] J. Gar r`11>to'e . 4 e M k Ce a1 L L? (11 3,..F krvaW�a� $„.-TlVj Cool % `Part J), r1eV 55 33 t�All.l!!11•: TO RECORD OR I''I1.i• 'rIITS (:tTNTRAc'r POR IWRI) MAY (IIV!•: {)'!'l1ia:It 1'AItTIES rn, rr • i•11 •r 1,1.1 ,r, nr ?. 11 7., , 11r, r,tr.i11t:11•11 QUITCLAIM DEED EASEMENT C.S. 6204 00 =62) 90t Parcel 2172 County of Ramsey The State of Minnesota having heretofore acquired an easement for trunk highway purposes on the real estate hereinafter described, and the Commissioner of Transportation of said State having determined that the same is no longer needed; Now, therefore, upon said determination and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 161.43, the State of Minnesota, by James N. Denn, its Commissioner of Transportation, Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Eight Thousand Five Hundred and No /100 Dollars ($8,500.00) paid to the State for deposit in the trunk highway fund, does hereby release, quitclaim and convey to the present fee owner, Edward A. Donatelle, of Ramsey County, Minnesota, Grantee, all its interest in and to the real estate in Ramsey County. Minnesota, described as follows: That part of Tract A described below: Tract A That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County. Minnesota; which lies northerly of aline run parallel wifh and distant 33 feet northerly of the east and west quarter line of said Section 8, southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 75 feet southwesterly of Line 1 described below, southeasterly of Line 2 described below and westerly of Line 3 described below: Line 1: Beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of said Section 8, distant 848.5 feet west of the center thereof: thence run northwesterly at an angle of 40 degrees 07 minutes 00 seconds from said east and west quarter line (measured from west to north) for 400 feet and there terminating; Line 2. Beginning at a point on a line run parallel with and distant 75 feet southwesterly of Line 1 described above, distant 150 feet northwesterly of its intersection with a line run parallel with and distant 33 feet northerly of the east and west quarter line of said Section 8; thence run southwesterly to a point on said 33 foot parallel line, distant 150 feet westerly of said intersection and there terminating; Page 1 of 2 Line 3. Beginning at a point on a line run parallel with and distant 75 feet southwesterly of Line 1 described above, distant 75 feet northwesterly of its intersection with a line run parallel with and distant 33 feet northerly of the east and west quarter line of said Section 8; thence run southwesterly to a point on said 33 foot parallel line. distant 65 feet westerly of said intersection and there terminating; containing 0.13 acre, more or less; Subject to the following restrictions: No access shall be permitted to Trunk Highway No. 62, renumbered 10 or to County Road No. H2 from the lands herein conveyed. Dated this day of STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA By 04 (Assistant Director of the Office of (Right of Way and Surveys) - Seal of the Commissioner of Transportation ) ss. ) On this day of f , Notary Public within and for said County, , before me, a ty personalty � peered I10fT 4.ek P to me personalty known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument and who did say that he is the (Assistant Director of the Office of Right of Way and Surveys and duly authorized agent of the Commissioner of Transportation) of the State of Minnesota and acknowledged that he executed the foregoing instrument and caused the seal of the Commissioner of Transportation to be affixed thereto. by authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.43, and as the freeAct and deed of said State. (QQi7toved as to form and execution: Assistant Attorney General This instrument was drafted by the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, RAN Legal and Real Estate Conveyance Unit. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 832421 G.07W Page 2of2 ,M 1U t. ratt. .-11 WARY PJ %UG -M4gM 5OTA liAMSPY tOUd1V w menu , egg it. MO 5b. PLANNIP MEMO G COMVII6SIOn To: Mounds View Planning Commission, From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Discussion of City Remnant Parcel Date: October 30, 1998 Background: When Edgewood Drive is relocated in the spring of 1999, a 1 '/2 acre remnant site will be created which could be developed. Also in the area is the Midland Videen property. It is located south of the Community Center property and east of Edgewood Drive. The property is approximately 9.4 acres in size. A wetland occupies a major portion of the property. There is approximately 1 '/2 acres at the southwest corner of the site that is developable. Because the two sites would be contiguous it makes sense to market them together to get the best development. The Midland Videen site also offers an opportunity to solve some parking and wetland mitigation problems on the adjacent Community Center site. In June of 1998 the City Council authorized staff (Resolution 5246) to enter into an option agreement to purchase the Midland Videen properly and to send out a Request for Proposals (RFP) to seek unified well planned development on the parcels. An option agreement was drafted and given to a representative of the Midland Videen property owner. The option agreement has never been agreed to or signed by either the owner of the Midland Videen property or the City. Initially the City was waiting for final agreements on the theater property to insure that Edgewood Drive would be realigned and the remnant parcel created. The City is also proceeding with another alternative to solve the parking and wetland mitigation problem at the Community Center. The owner of the Midland Videen property has also been negotiating with other interested parties. City staff has drafted an RFP but has not sent it out because we do not control the Midland Videen property, the final plans for the realignment of Edgewood Drive have not been completed, and the exact size and configuration of the remnant parcel has not been determined. The City has recently received the attached Offer to Purchase the remnant parcel from TOLD Development Co. for $350,000. TOLD has a signed letter of intent to purchase the Midland Videen property. TOLD has not provided details at this time about how they would develop the properties. They have indicated that they would propose to develop a Walgreens store and possibly a restaurant if there is sufficient room on the site. Anthony Properties has also expressed interest in the site and requested an opportunity to bid on the City remnant parcel. They have indicated that they would be interested in developing an office building on the site. The City Council considered the offers and continued consideration indefinitely. They stated that it would be important to have additional Planning Commission review and input concerning what the land use should be on the parcels involved. The City owned remnant site is currently guided for CC Civic Center uses by the City's Comprehensive Plan and is zoned PF Public Facilities. The Midland Videen property is currently guided as MD Medium Density Residential by the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned B -3 Highway Business. A Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning of the city -owned remnant would be required if the site is to be developed for commercial uses. A Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Midland Videen property would also be required. The draft future land use plan which the Planning Commission is working on designates the sites as CC PUD Community Commercial Planned Unit Development. The City Council also expressed concern that we don't know the exact configuration of the remnant piece. Staff is working with SEH to finalize the plans for the street realignment project which will determine the final configuration of the remnant parcel. Staff has also asked for cost estimates for a plat to create a lot which could then be developed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached materials and recommend a specific best use for the site in question. N;IDATAIGROUPSICOMDE VIPLANCOMM110- 30A -9.MEM Midland Videen / City Property Site Map MUNN 411111Mitlt wI :IHE Area of Detail' 400 0 400 Feet noti■olm■ririi Community Center Bronson Drive rw. Properties Shaded Available for Development as Outlined in RFP Remnit City Prope Theater Site ?k70 County Road 1-2 Area representing 'Remnant City Property is an approximation — not to scale. TOLD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY October 12, 1998 Mayor Duane McCarty City Council Members City of Mounds View 2401 Eghway 10 Mounds View, MV 55112 Re: Offer to Purchase Property Mounds Yew Dear Mayor McCarty and City Council Members: lam pleased to present to you this Offer to Purchase the parcel described herein under the following terms and conditions: BUYER: SELLER_ SITE: SITE CONDITION & INFORMATION: Meridian Properties Real Estate Development LLC (d/b /a TOLD Development Company), its successors and assigns. City of Mounds Yew. The site totals approximately 63,000 square feet located at the corner of Edgewood Drive and Hlghway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota_ Site is that area south of the to- be- relocated Edgewood Drive, and is highlighted on the enclosed site plan. Seller will provide copies of all information relating to the site from Seller's files including but not limited to surveys, soil conditions, environmental reports, plans for buildings, specifications, and geotechnical information. Additionally, Seller will provide Buyer with copies of all agreements with governmental authorities, easements or other agreements that will affect or encumber the property before or after a Closing. PURCHASE PRICE: Buyer agrees to pay the Purchase Price of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand and NO /100 dole (S350,000.00)_ W � �+OQO CO ' ERC! CENT ,MINNEAPOL S a MIL'.VAUKEE Mayor Duane .LlcCarry City Council .Wembers October 1', 1998 Page 2 PURCHASE AGREEMENT: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD: Buyer and Seller will enter into a. Purchase Agreement within ten (10) days of acceptance of this Letter of Intent by Seller as proposed by Purchaser. Buyer shall prepare Purchase Agreement. Purchase Agreement shall be in a form substantially similar to that dated October 13, 1997 between the parties. Seller will pay all Levied or pending Special Assessments or other levies prior to closing. Buyer shall have one hundred eighty (1 $p) days from the execution of a mutually acceptable Purchase Agreement to cancel the Purchase Agreement due to the following: I.) Buyer shall have been able to obtain all necessary governmental approvals and permits with regard to all applicable environmental, construction, zoning, platting, signage, subdivision, lot split, D. 0.T access and turn lane and other land use laws, ordinances and regulations and codes for the construction and use oftheProperry (and adjacent property) as Buyerintends. 2.) Buyer shall have been able to determine that all necessary udlities, including, but not limited to, natural gas, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water, are located at the property line and are of adequate capacity to serve the development of the Property contemplated by the Buyer. 3.) Buyer shall have been able to conduct such soil tests, environmental assessments or other tests or investigations as are consistent with its interest hereunder, the results of which shall be acceptable to Buyer in its sole discretion 4.) Buyer shall have been able to determine the costs of the site for new construction and the feasibility of the proposed project based upon said costs and said costs are acceptable to Buyer in its sole judgement. 5.) Buyer shall have been able to make application to applicable governmental units and/or quasi- governmental entities and to obtain any and all governmental or Quasi- governmental aid or subsidies necessary, in Buyer's sole judgement, for development of the Property in an economically feasible manner. .!,favor Duane .McCarty City Council Members October 12. 1998 Page 3 E.XZ'ELNSION: CLOSING: BROKER: 6.) Buyer shall have been able to enter into a net lease agreement with an anchor tenant of its choice on terms and conditions acceptable to Buyer in its sole discretion. 7.) Buyer shall have been able to obtain financing for the project an terms and conditions acceptable to Buyer in its sole discretion. 3.) Buyer shall have entered into binding purchase agreements with the owners of certain adjacent property and can simultaneously close on the purchase of the Property and said adjacent parcels. 9.) Buyer shalt have agreed to the form of quit claim deed to be given by the Seller, which quit claim deed., Buyer agrees, shall contain restrictions which run with the land which prohibit the use ofthe Property as an adult bookstore, adult movie theater, or massage parlor in each case whose business is the safe, rental or promotion of sexually explicit material acts or entertainment and to which admission is restricted due to age. 10.) In the event Buyer fails to. receive approval of the development of the Property at a public hearing, this Agreement may be terminated by either Seller or Buyer. Buyer shall deposit Earnest Money in the form of cash or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of Ten Thousand and NO /100 dollars (S10,000) in an escrow account with Old Republic Title Insurance Company. Earnest Money shall be refundable if Purchaser cancels the Purchase Agreement during Due Diligence Period and any Extension. Upon the expiration of the Due Diligence Period, provided Buyer has not closed or terminated the Purchase Agreement, Purchaser may extend the Due Diligence Period for three (2) periods of ninety (90) days by depositing additional Earnest Money in the form of cash or irrevocable letter of credit, in the amount of Five Thousand and NO /100 dollars (35,000) in an escrow account. The Additional Earnest Money shall be nonrefundable, but applicable to the purchase price.. CIosing will occur within thirty (30) days of expiration of Due Diligence Period and Extension, but not earlier than the vacation of present Edgwood Drive and reconstruction of Edgewood Drive to the permanent location. Buyer shall be responsible for compensating Terry Moses in connection with this proposed sale. .Flavor Duane McCarty City Counctl Members October 12. 1998 Page 4 This is a Letter of Inten o f Intent by November consideration. Very truly yours, t and shall not bind either parry. Ptease return a signed original of this Letter 11, 1998, at which time this offer shall expire. Thank you in advance for your MERIDFAJN PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE DEVrT.OPHE T LLC, a Minnesota limited liability comps ' ; •l;, OLD DevgIopment Company) By: Its: Robert Cunningham Vice President - Developm RHC:cst it:. boo +need, mxgl 1.812 AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED THIS ----� DAY OF 1998. SELLER: Its: October 26, 1998 Mr. Chuck Whiting City Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 r. .a:_ �J V I v a, ANTHONY PROPERTIES Real Estate Development & investment 12770Coit Read, SW #a II70 Dallas, TOW 75251 (972) 991-4484 • pax (972) 991.4894 VIA: Fax RE: Sale of city_ land at the northeast corner of new Edgewood Drive and Highway 10 Dear Chuck, Approximately a year ago, Wendell Smith met with you and Rick Jopke. As part of that meeting, he discussed with you my desire to make an offer for the vacant city land that will be created with the realignment of Edgewood Drive. In that meeting, it was discussed that it was the position of the city that this land would be zoned office and a Request for proposals would be sent out by city staff. I have Learned through Wendell that TOLD Development has made an offer to purchase this land and that it will be discussed at the next City Council, meetings tonight. It is also my understanding that they wish to put in a Walgreens and perhaps a restaurant which is a retail zoning. As 1 made my intentions to purchase this property known to you almost a year ago, and was told that I should wait until a RFP was sent out, I should now also be given the opportunity of bidding on this property. We are presently negotiating with TOLD Development to put a Walgreens on our site at the corner of Long Lake Road and Highway 10. This land is in the PUD as retail. 1 would think that the city would want to have all land that is presently zoned retail developed before creating more retail land. We have worked with the city for over three years in getting the theatre project under way. At the present time, the theatre is under construction and we are doing the working drawings for our first office building, so that we can begin construction in the spring, I believe that our working relationship with the city has been a positive one and we wish to continue working on projects in Mounds View. Mr. Chuck Whiting October 26, 1998 Page 2 1 A Please make my intentions known to the City Council so that we can become part of the bidding process for this land. Sincerely yours, RJA/rlg cc: Wendell Smith 5c. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission, From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Resignation of Planning Commissioner Bobbi Brooks Date: October 30, 1998 Attached for your information is a letter of resignation I recently received from Planning Commissioner Bobbi Brooks. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council direct staff to advertise the opening on the commission and that the Planning Commission have an opportunity to interview and recommend a candidate to fill the vacancy. N:IDATAIG ROUPS IC0MDEVIPLANC0MM110- 30B -9.MEM October 22, 1998 Mr, Rick Jopke City of Mounds View Regarding: Resignation from the Mounds View Planning Commission Please regard this note as my resignation from the Mounds View Planning Commission as of the above date. Although I have en- joyed the honor of serving on the Commission for the past two and one-half years I find, now, that I can't give enough time to it to make it fulfulling for me or useful to you. Mounds View is in good hands with the current Commission and I wish all of you the utmost best. I'll be at the polls, Cam, root- ing for you. Bruce, whatever elected office you run for you've got my vote. 111 miss all of you. Rick, drop my Plan books off early next week. Thank you in advance for forwarding this to the Commission. Take care. Very sincerely, Bobbi Brooks 5 cP, PLANNING COVIMISSIOv MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission, From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Request for Extension of Comprehensive Plan Submittal Deadline Date: October 30, 1998 As I previously discussed with the Planning Commission, I have talked to Metropolitan Council staff members about the possibility of an extension to the December 31, 1998 deadline to submit an updated comprehensive plan. They indicated that over half of the communities in the metropolitan area have or will be requesting an extension. These extensions will range from two to nine months. Attached are the forms that the City will have to complete to request an extension. The City Council will also have to pass a resolution requesting the extension. The following would be a revised process and schedule for completion of the updated comprehensive plan. A draft plan will be completed by January 29, 1999. The Planning Commission could then hold one or two community forums in February to present the draft to the community. The Planning Commission could hold a formal public hearing in March and recommend adoption by the City Council. The City Council could hold a public hearing in March or April and approve the updated Comprehensive Plan for submittal to the Metropolitan Council and adjacent communities in April or May. The Metropolitan Council then has 60 days to approve the plan or suggest changes. The City Council could then formally adopt the plan. Copies of information which I have received from the Metropolitan Council staff concerning extensions is attached for your information. I have also attached a copy of a resolution that the City Council will have to pass requesting the extension. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council pass a resolution requesting a 6 month extension to the deadline for submittal of an updated comprehensive plan and directing staff to complete and submit the necessary paperwork to the Metropolitan Council. N:I DATAIGROUPSICOMDEV \PLANCOMM110 -3 0C -9, MEM Art A Metropolitan Council 4 Working for the Region, Planning for the Future October 6, 1998 Rick Jopke Community Development Director City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 -1499 RE: Request for Extension of Time to Complete Review and Amendment of Local Comprehensive Plans Dear Mr. Jopke: In response to your inquiries regarding a deadline extension for completing your comprehensive plans, I am enclosing a packet of information outlining the process that you will need to follow. State statutes provide the Metropolitan Council with the authority to grant extensions to local governments in order to complete or amend comprehensive plans, fiscal devices and official controls. As our information packet describes, we must receive from you a resolution from your governing board (model attached), a completed questionnaire (enclosed), and a timetable for completion of your plan. The information we require from you is critical to our effort to plan regional systems in your area. In addition, your data, along with other cities' plans already submitted, will provide a clearer regional context within which to complete individual comprehensive plan reviews. If you have any questions regarding the form or the process for granting plan extensions, contact Guy Peterson your sector representative at 602 -1418. Sincerely, Craig R. Rapp Director, Community Development Enclosures cc. Rick Packer, Metropolitan Council Representative District 10 Guy Peterson, Sector Rep Richard Thompson, Office of Local Assistance H:\LIBRARY\COMMUNDV\ Beaver \Request98Extensionmaindoc..doc 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul. Minnesota 55 10 1 -1634 (6121 291 -6359 Fax 291 -6550 TDD /TTY 291 -0904 Metro lnta Line 229 -3780 ;r, r.•m,i1 nonrn,:,,n, Em.rni , r REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PLANNING PERIOD Name of community Date Responsible person Fax ( Phone ( The Council understands that since your plan is not ready for submission, this information is subject to change. Responding to these questions is intended to provide tentative information to the Council so that it can anticipate future land needs and plan for Metropolitan systems. Request plan extension to (date) Anticipated date of submission to adjacent local governments Anticipated date of submission to the Metropolitan Council Are the community's forecasts of population, households and employment for 2020 different than those developed by the Metropolitan Council? Yes No Do not lmow (please circle only one) If yes, what are the forecasts that the community will be using for its comprehensive plan? 2000 2010 2020 Population Households Employment Are the community's housing goals for a mixture of single family detached and multi- family dwelling units in the period 1996 through 2020 different than those developed by the metropolitan council? Yes No • If yes, what are the community goals for multi- family? • What are the community goals for single - family detached? Are the community's wastewater flow projections for 2000, 2010 and 2020 different than those developed by the metropolitan council? Yes No If yes, what are the wastewater flow projections for; 2000 2010 2020 What is the amount of vacant (developable) and within the current urban service area? Single - family residential acres Multi- family residential acres Commercial acres Industrial acres Public and semi - public acres Is there any underused land or Iand targeted for reuse as residential development? Yes No If yes, how many acres? Do you anticipate requesting to add more land to the MUSA? Yes If yes, how much? When? How does this relate to accommodating the Council's forecasts? No Are your transportation assumptions consistent with the information in the Council's system statement? Yes No If no, please explain Narrative; Please discuss the current status of your plan. How far along is it? Are you doing it in- house or using a consultant? If the later, who? (please use additional sheets as needed). HALIBRARYNCOMMUNDWisaverkflaquest tW axtoneion of Phoning Period.doc RESOLUTION RESOLUTION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF THE DECE : ER 31, 1998 DUE DATE FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY (TOWNS ) OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR CONSISTENCY WITH AMENDED METROPOLITAN COUNCIL POLICY PLANS WHEREAS, state statutes (Minn. Stat. §473.175- 473.871 (1996) requires that cities (townships) review and revise their comprehensive plans for consistency with Metropolitan Council policy plans; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has amended its policy plans; and has provided system statements outlining Council policy relative to the city (township); and WHEREAS, the City (Township) of is required to review its comprehensive plan for consistency with the amended policy plans and to prepare a revised comprehensive plan for submission to the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 1998; and WHEREAS, the City (Township) of has scheduled and budgeted to complete a major review and update of its comprehensive plan by (date) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City (Township) of requests that the Metropolitan Council grant the city (township) of a extension to the deadline to complete its comprehensive plan; circulate the revised document to the adjacent governmental units and affected school districts for review and comment; and, following approval by the planning commission and after consideration by the city council (township board), submit the plan to the Metropolitan Council for review. The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by , seconded by and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: , and the following voted against the same: WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I minutes of a regular meeting of said in of the City (Township) of , County of have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of held on the , with the original thereof on file WITNESS MY HAND officially as such (title) H:\library\commundOexten9Sresolution-exten98.doc this (date) Suggestions Regarding the Six Month Adjacent Government Review • The Land Planning Act (Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.175) requires that six months prior to submitting the comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council for review, the plan must be submitted to adjacent governments for review and comment. • Adjacent governments include cities, townships, counties and school districts. • The "plan" means the most current draft available at the time of the adjacent community review. • The Metropolitan Council advises that at the time of adjacent government review, the community submit the draft plan to the Council for informal review and comment. • More recent law governing the local government review process limits the review periods to 60 days. It is the Council's position that this adjacent government review period is 60 days, not six full months. • We are suggesting to cities that they proactively pursue this adjacent government review and clearly spell out their expectations of their neighboring communities in a cover letter as they circulate the plan. • We would suggest that cover letters requesting adjacent government review include at least the following. • The names of all the other governments to whom the draft has been sent for this adjacent government review, and the dates of these requests. • A reminder that the government which you've asked to review the plan has only 60 days in which to provide review comments. ➢ A statement that if you do not receive comment within 60 days you will assume no comments are forthcoming and you will proceed with your completion schedule. > A proposed schedule of the important local public review steps remaining — public meetings, hearings and consideration by city council for submittal to the Metropolitan Council. > A request that the reviewing adjacent government expedite a written response indicating they have received the draft plan for review and have no comments or issues with the plan if they in fact have no concerns with the document. • Keep copies of all your correspondence with adjacent governments regarding this six month review. ▪ If in doubt, clarify specific matters with your own Legal counsel. H;ILIHRARY\COMMUND V1auyPQ423981ixmonciueviaw. doc RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION REQUESTING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF THE DECEMBER 31, 1998 DUE DATE FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR CONSISTENCY WITH AMENDED METROPOLITAN COUNCIL POLICY PLANS WHEREAS, state statutes (Minn. Stat. 473.175- 473.871 (1996) requires that cities review and revise their comprehensive plans for consistency with Metropolitan Council policy plans; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has amended its policy plans; and has provided system statements outlining Council policy relative to the city; and WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is required to review its comprehensive plan for consistency with the amended policy plans and to prepare a revised comprehensive plan for submission to the Metropolitan Council by December 31,1998; and WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has scheduled and budgeted to complete a major review and update of its comprehensive plan by June 30, 1999; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Mounds View requests that the Metropolitan Council grant the City of Mounds View a six month extension to the deadline to complete its comprehensive plan; circulate the revised document to the adjacent governmental units and affected school districts for review and comment; and, following approval by the planning commission and after consideration by the city council, submit the plan to the Metropolitan Council for review. The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by seconded by , and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: , and the following voted against the same: WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Duane McCarty, Mayor Chuck Whiting, City Clerk/Administrator MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION + NOVEMBER 18, 1998 7:00 P.M% SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Planning Case No. 538 -98 Property Involved: 2400 Highway 10 Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 561 -98, a Resolution Approving a Variance to. Allow a Five -Foot Parking Lot Setback Applicant: Donatelles Supper Club 5. Staff Rep orts/Information Items a. Discussion of City Remnant Parcel. b. Code Enforcement Update 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 7. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** APPLICANTS; YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717 -4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of the November 4, 1998 minutes of the Planning Commission 2. Discussion of the Comprehensive Plan Public Facilities Element REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: November 18, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 538 -98 Applicant: DonateIles Supper Club Request: The applicant is requesting a five -foot parking lot setback Location: 2400 Highway 10 PIN Nos. 083023240057 Zoning/Land Use: B -3, Highway Business District / Restaurant Applicable Regulations: Section 1104.01, Subd. 4c(2): Parking lots shall maintain a thirty -foot setback from the front property line. Section 1121.09, Subd. 7 requires (among other things) that driveways and stalls shall be surfaced with a bituminous material, and that the City shall review site and drainage plans for proposals to surface driveways and stalls for five or more vehicles. Section 1121.09, Subd. 11, requires that all open, off - street parking areas shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot with landscaping provided in all areas bordering parking area. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Attachments: Background: Planning Application Zoning Map Proof of Ownership Letter from Applicant's Representative Site Plan (Separate Attachment) Resolution 561 -98 The applicant is requesting a variance from the required thirty -foot setback established for parking lots in a business district. The Donatelles parking lot, which has been located in its present location since the 1960s, currently does not meet this requirement. The applicant, in conjunction with the Donatelles Variance Planning Case No. 538 -98 November 18, 1998 Page 2 development of the theater site to the north, will be removing its Highway 10 access in return for allowing a through access to the theater site. To compensate Donatelles for this concession, the theater developer has offered to resurface, curb and gutter the parking lot, as shown on the attached plans dated 10/21/98. In three separate areas on the Donatelles site, the extent of the parking lot non - conformity will be lessened as pavement will be removed in the setback area and within the right of way itself The existing parking lot and access fronting County Road H2 will not be altered, with the exception of removing forty feet of impervious surface from the access, reducing the overall width of the access from 180 feet to 140 feet. It is expected that the nonconforming County Road H2 access (which is too wide) will be addressed with any fixture reconstruction of County Road H2. At its meeting on November 4, 1998, the Commission discussed this case in an effort to familiarize itself with the request as well as to bring out in the open any questions or issues with regard to the proposed site plan and variance. While the consensus was that the plan looked good and would vastly improve the aesthetics on the site, there was some concern about pass - through traffic from the Theater site accessing County Road H2. Other issues brought up included pedestrian safety for those parking north of the building and whether or not additional lighting would be installed. Analysis: The planned improvements to the Donatelles parking lot result from a MnDOT stipulation that requires Donatelles' Highway 10 access be closed in order for the Theater site to have a second Highway 10 access on their property. Donatelles has agreed to the closure of its access on the condition that their customers be able to use the Theater's Highway 10 access to gain entrance to the Donatelles parking lot by means of a throughway between the two properties, and that the Donatelles parking lot be improved and expanded. The plans submitted by the applicant for the parking lot improvements represent an improvement over the current state of Donatelles parking area. The parking area, which was constructed more than thirty years ago, did not violate any City setback requirements at the time of its construction. The basis of the hardship, as applied to the Donatelles property, results from the size and shape of the lot, and the fact that it is bordered by streets on two of its three sides. The impact of enforcing the setbacks as they are written in Chapter 1104 of the Zoning Code to the Donatelles property would create a situation in which the business could no longer effectively operate. The restaurant would potentially lose 50 of its parking stalls, leaving 25 or less stalls for its clientele. By paving the dirt area at the southeast corner of the lot, closing its Highway 10 access and installing curb and gutter, the restaurant will be able to increase its parking availability while significantly improving the overall appearance of the property as well. Donatelles Variance Planning Case No. 538 -98 November 18, 1998 Page 3 Criteria for Granting Variances: (From Chapter 1 125 of the City Code,) A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Code may be issued by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of property owner's land. A variance may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The Donatelles property is a small, unusual pie- shaped lot at the intersection of two major roadways through the City. Being less than an acre in area, the lot without question creates practical difficulties which the present owners did not create. This criterion is met. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. To enforce the thirty-foot parking lot setback onto the Donatelles property after thirty years of operation in its present state would potentially deprive the property of as many as 50 parking stalls. A reduction of spaces by that amount would effectively prohibit the restaurant from operating any further at that location. This criterion is met. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is only seeking to improve the appearance and functionality of the parking lot and to lessen the extent of the nonconformity. The applicant did not create the conditions which necessitate the approval of a variance. This criterion is met. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Donatelles restaurant was one of the first businesses located in the City of Mounds View, a fixture that has continued to do business through four decades to the present. At the time the restaurant was established at its present location, there were no setback requirements. Granting a variance in this situation would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege, in that any property owner in a similar circumstance would be given the same consideration. This criterion is met. Donatefles Variance Planning Case No. 538 -98 November 18, 1998 Page 4 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship in that the intent of the request is to lessen the extent of the existing nonconformity and to improve the overall appearance of the property. This criterion is met. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. The Zoning Code was not drafted with the intent to prevent a legally conforming business from improving its operation. Granting the requested variance would serve only to legitimize a dimensional nonconformity which has been in existence for thirty years. This criterion is met. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply alight and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Granting of this requested variance will improve the flow of traffic in and around this site and will be a benefit to public safety by closing the Highway 10 access from the Donatelles property. No property values will be diminished or impaired as a result of the Donatelles improvements. This criterion is met. Recommendation: Given the information presented herein yet contingent upon the input provided at the public hearing, it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 561 -98, a resolution approving a variance to the front yard setback for parking lots in a commercial district for the property located at 2400 Highway 10. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEVIDE VCASES1538- 981REPORT2.PC o i p. 2 'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ala fv1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 4.4 .4 e irie, a 2401 Iighway 10, Mound View MN 55112' 612-717-4020 612 - 784.3462 - FAX Please Type or Print information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Naive of Applicant 1.3 r .. Address Interest in Property (check appropriate Owner of Property PP priate box} Lessee, Operator, Manager • Other (explain) gOo h`l6 &IA, D1 1//j iii (. 47. Telephone '2 5Y ? SrGO Q Contract for Deed Owner ra Agreement to Purchase Applicants must _ _... prov3de evidences of interest in property property, you merest provide a letter of a p' at the times of application, and if you are not the owner of the property owner emuat sign this application fors it to be a accep owner gig consent to the filing of This application. The Property Description/Proposal 'Address araai Location.'. . ,:!i . pEou t� , /.n4/41.f. 4,+_--tl 7./- Property Identification #{PINT #) # of Acres Current Zoning Type of Application Comprehensive Plan Ameudmen a Rezoning Major Subdivision Minor Subdivision Planned Unit Development (MD a PUD Amendment 0 Conditional Use Permit Variance a Code Appeal o' Develop Review /Site Plan Wetland Alteration Permit a Wetland Huffer Permit Q. Floodalain Permit Other t } S250 5254 /acre; min S25Q max. S I 500 5250 +0 deposit* S200 Refer ro rezoning fees S350 R -1, R -2 $75; all others S25Q R -1, R -2 S 100 all others $250 SI00 S 125 /acre; min S125 max S750 R -1, R -2 $150; all others S200 R- I R -2 S25; all others S100 S200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and for consultant time rah or preparation of materials associated with this appf is uj t. The ant in the l yes review, • incurred caste in excess of- the initial deposit applicant shah be responsible far. all to the a ep amount Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be reftmmded applicant within thirty (30) days alter consideration of the application is completed. L Present ilk of . rF. Dire rC ial Establiafirnent Other t)' Property CIaasiikation �. Q Q tea' -58 —u� Single Family Dwelling wry Dwelling Industrial Establishment Toners DYE (OM SIGMA �'AP . Nerf KNOWLEDGE �. � APPLICATION, l ONION PRO �3ED!S DECLARE DoT To Si orA L ACCURATE BEST OF Mane carAPplieant (typed/printed) Sipatize of Property Owner Phone Number of Owner w*a* www* w*# ewM* w** *w**www **ewwww**a*s **.**„o4.*.gwouwa Date of Submittal Date Acceptance • Mann g Cam No. Application: A Pam 'cation: Dcpcsaitt ()dim Feas Paid � o _ _ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Limit Assigned €o; I Z(i�y�it Total: Check * Recaint p.3 Zoning Map Planning Case 53898 Applicant: Donatelles Location: 2400 Highway 10 �V 4 P -.4: Wendeil R. Smith ma Pee Eafa are Brokerage October 22, 1998 Mr. rim Ericson Associate Planner City of Monads View 2401 I-lighy y 10 Motmds View, isitmtiesota 55112 RE: Setback Variance for Dottatelle's ,Supper Club Dear Mr. Ericson: As a representative ofDonatelle's, I am requesting the ability to ptrt in curbs and gutters along lEghway 10, closing offthe access point to Highway 10, and paving the the property that is now dirt. I understand that in order to do this, p g section of on the front yard setback I wiI! rated a variance As you know, I also represent Anthony Properties, order to get a new signalized • who is developing the theater site. In. to have _access a onto County man' Anthony Properties and the City were required ry Road H -2. Also, the state required that in order to have the second access to H ghway 10, which is closest to Donatelle's, we would have to have Donatelie s agree to close their existing access. In the past months, Donateile's has agreed to close off their access point and Anthony has agreed to give Donatelle's access to the new proposed access point to Highway 10. in doing so, we have agreed to p close o$'the .access P� in the curb and gutter along the highway, close to the pow, pave the area of the parking lot that is now dirt and move their west comer of their property. You have the site plan that shows these changes. 1 understand that in order to do this, we will need a variance Commission_ Therefore, s have attached an application for thevprarian ebalong with a g check for $250. I tmderstaad that the setback for the front yard .is 30 feet. 5 feet from the The existing parking lot is now highway right of way. By moving any curbing or parking back to meet the '^tom Jaseptira2 ati 1N • 012)484-57.1 e�y ; Fa - e-r,a,a - wsr aNn nab ®Yfd E1b.. P.5 current code, you wouldhaye to go all the way to the corner of the building and would lose parking in a project that needs as much parking as they can get. ft hardship for Donatelle's to have to meet the current code requirements. would truly be a The new owners of Donatelle's are cleaning up the looks of the building. Recently they painted the outside and are now in the process of putting on a new roof . Y in the _curbs and �s along the highway and paw the dirt ` mg positive :�.... rovernent to their ° lurking area, _this will be a image, while increasing the safety of their patrons. Inst aS :re "' octant, by allowing 2L4 to t in these improvements, and granting Donatelle's a Valiance, it wilL allow us to close off an existing access that is so very close to the intersection of Co somewhat dangerous and Anthony access, Minnesota. DOT will allow ad secrnzd a .Highway ssonto closing the project. This new acre will be ihrthcr Erom the intersection and from have a deceler� lane. This second access from the to exit onto �w$y 11) instead of Anthony property �� allow more traffic get the second exit, then we can be assured that there will be m lithe theater project does not exit. re people using the H ®2 We. believe that this isa win -wits situation for all parties. This includes the City, Donatelle's, Anthony Properties, and the neighbors who live south of the project. that the P _:..1 3 ►�� P fit. We are requesting. $ Commission � also see the value of the variance we are Mr. Ericson, if you need any further information, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Wendell R Smith No delinquent taxes and transfer entered: Certificate of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required , 19 County Auditor 13y Deputy 1 (reserved for mortgage registry to payment data) (reserved tar recording dual ............. MORTGAGE REGISTRY TAX DUE HEREON: S� .. Date: TATS CONTRACT FOR DEED is made on the above date by Edward A. Donacelle and Linda Donatelle husband and vile 19 98 Seller ( whether one or more). and Itur' -ane Cara Propertir.g, T.LP (marital status) , Purchaser (whether One or more). Seller and Purchaser agree to the following terms: 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. Seller hereby sells, and Purchaser hereby buys, real property in Ram' County, Minnesota, described as follows: Thar part of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sectian,8, Township 30, Range: 23 lying Souchaescerly of Trunk Highway 110, Ramsey, Caunty, Minnesota together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto (the Property). 2. TITLE. Seller warrants that title to the Property is, on the date of this contract, subject only to the following exceptions: • (a) Covenants, conditions, restrictions, declarations and easements of record, if any; (b) Reservations of minerals or mineral rights by the State of Minnesota, if any; (c) Budding, 'zoning and subdivision taws and regulations; (d) The lien of real estate taxes and installments of special assessments which are payable by Purch- aser pursuant to paragraph 6 of this contract;; and (c) The following liens or encumbrances: None 3. DELIVERY OF DEED AND EVIDENCE OFTITLF.. Upon Purchaser's prompt and full performance of this contract, Seller shall: (a) Execute. acknowledge and deliver to Purchaser a War -ante Deed, in recordable form, conveying marketable title to the Property to Purchaser. subject only to the fol- lowing exceptions: (i) Those exceptions referred to in paragraph 2(a). (b). (c) and (d) of this contract; (ii) Liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters which Purchaser has created, suffered or permitted to accrue after the date of this contract; and 19. ASSESSMENTS BY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION. if the Property is subject to a recorded declaration providing for assessments to be levied against the Property by any owners' association, which assess - ments'nay become a lien against the Property if not paid. then: (a) Purchaser shall promptly pay, when due, all assessments imposed by the owners' association or other governing body as required by the provisions of the declaration or other related documents; and (b) So long as the owners' association maintains a master or blanket policy of insurance against fire. extended coverage perils and such other hazards and in such amounts as are required by this con- tract, then- (i) Purchaser's obligation in this contract to maintain hazard insurance coverage on the Property is satisfied: and (ii) The provisions in paragraph 8 of this contract regarding application of insurance proceeds shall be superseded by the provisions of the declaration or other related documents: and {iii) In the event of a distribution of insurance proceeds in lieu of restoration or repair following an insured casualty loss to the Property, any such proceeds payable to Purchaser are hereby as- signed and shall be paid to Seller for application to the sum secured by this contract, with the excess. if any. paid to Purchaser. 20. ADDITIONAL TERMS. See Attached Exhibit A SE j.:ER(S) Edward A. Donaceile PURCHASER(S) /.. 1 f - Linda Dona ea e County of State of Minnesota ,► PAb 171u foregoing. inetrument was 4eknowleafged before me this 'e l day of ka -a - S 1 by W DONATELLE AND LINDA DONATELLE husband and wife ,tJ Jam, tit - ARIAt. 'AWP Ilia ABA L$1 OTT1ER TTTTE Ok RAt4 1YRP .et DCUCLAS J. DI HN 1"141_4 �•Tr:otn ^.Tttirtlt;- +ntaffSOrA �tlydemei.0 .Jar-a1.:J_a im o limmeau.,-i,A County of State of Minnesota The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before by 3sr/C.41 $ OF N T ruauc .•. OTiIEa OFTTCrAt. me this 3�1 day of °Aari k .19-22, e a" Hu r s e Ceai Prooercies rshio under ehe Laws of Minnesoea, art behal,E of ehe n�r:nessltin / /6V T•t1 t;ed 1labiii[ artne N/TTAIIIAL 17AMp O SEAL. Iap rmica TTrtE lip RANG► DOUGLAS J. DD-IN Ike" rtorv:r PUMIC - rav_ttESDTA My C mm. E am. at. 2 .r�,�Ia:braaro:'i. TI113 JNSTRU NT• W A$ faAr nm aT !NAUB ANO AGMAMI Craig A. Erickson, Esq. Chestnut & Brooks, P.A. 3700 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 SIGMA HE 111 N(ff rim : .._r: prima Ot- ine1Al. Ian Swamis km Canal p10p®lythdatbd in tNa eennerient shadcf be aunt 1¢ 7)101 it1-1; /�1ova�3 U14w, /10V 5711 d- tR4.iv.i�ae! te�� L L.? (U 3S 4 ra .jL . A As -ee-r. N'aj l' A11.111tE 1.1) Itl.:colt!) OR 111.8.: 'Tilts C:UNTitA(T OR I)1.:1 =,I) MAY (111+°10; ()°i°fiH °1{ PARTIES !'ltlt)It1't'Y OVER Ptrlrrll.ASB_It'Ft INTEREST IN 'I'Ilr: €°tt )I'I ?It'I'Y. QUITCLAIM DEED EASEMENT C.S. 6204 (702) 90, Parcel 2/72 County of Ramsey The State of Minnesota having heretofore acquired an easement for trunk highway purposes on the real estate hereinafter described, and the Commissioner of Transportation of said State Navin . g determin ed that the same is no longer needed: Now, therefore, upon said determination and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 1141.43, the State of Min - `_ • °ta. by dames N. Oenn, its Cam Transportation, Grantor for and in consideration of the sum of Commissioner of Sgtst Thousand Five Hundred and NaI100 Dollars (y8,500.00 paid to the State for deposit in the trunk highway fund, does hereby release, quitclaim and convey to the present fee owner, Edward A. Qflnateife, of Ramsey County, Minnesota, Grantee, all its interest in and to the real estate in Minnesota d rt Ramsey ascribed as follows: _ _ That part of Tract A described below; Tract A. That part of the Southeast Quarter of the N ° rthwest :starter of Section 8, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County. which Lies northerly �!� esata; W iC files nr rt a ly of said lS a tin parallel with and distant 33 feet northerly wet southwesterly 8, southwesterly of a line run parallel with of the east and esterly of Line 1 described below. southeasterly sc and distant and westerly of Line 3 described below: rtY of Line 2 described below an Line 1: Line 2. Beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of 848.5 feet west of the center thereof thence �"a Batanangle distant degrees 07 minutes 00 s � n.1rt northwesterly at an angle of 40 seconds from said east and west quarter tine (measured from west to north) far 4100 feet and there terminating Beginning at a point on a fine run parallel with and distant 75 f of Line 1 described above, distant 150 feet north feet witty line run parallel with and distant 33 feet northerly f its intersection west quarter with a tine of said Section 8; thence dY of the east and west q line, of said distant 150 feet wester of southwesterly to a point on said 33 foot parallel westerly said intersection and there terminating: Page 1 of 2 Line 3. Beginning at a point on a line run parallel with and distant 75 feet sauthyyestedy of Line 1 described above, distant 75 feet northwesterly of itis intersection with a fine run parallel with and distant 33 feet northerly of the as and west quarter line of said Section 8; thence run southwesterly to a point on said 33 foot parallel tine, distant $5 feet westerly of said intersection and there terminating; containing 0.13 acre, more or less; Subject to the following restrictions; No access shall be permitted to Trunk Highway No. 62. renumbered 10 or to County Road No. H2 from the lands herein conveyed. Dated this day of STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEy STATE OF MINNESOTA (Assistant Director of the Office of (Right of Way and Surveys) • Seal of the Commissioner of Transportation ) m ) On this day of Notary Public within and for said County. to me personally known to be the person say that he is the IfC, , before me, a Derma f, lamed �_E1 i2e_4; s z d who executed the foregoing instrument and who did (Assistant Director of the Office of Right of Way and Surveys and duly authorized agent of the Commissioner of Transportation) of the Slate of Minnesota and adcnowiedged that he executed the foregoing instrument and caused the seal of the Commissioner of Transportation to be affixed thereto. by authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.43, and as the free_act and deed of said State. t°prbved as to form and execution: Assistant Attom e._: ey General This instrument was drafted by the State of Minnesota. Qepartment of Transportation, R. W Legal and Real Estate Conveyance Unit. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 R32421 G.07W Page 2of2 WWII. I. KOKO 0.,............._. rMona PuSUc-'IM+o(sorA RA t CoL.4r ..1 111. Mil MOUNDS /VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 561 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STA'I'D; OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A FIVE -FOOT FRONT YARD PARKING LOT SETBACK FOR DONATELLES SUPPER CLUB, LOCAI'ED AT 2400 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 538 -98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of George Marvin, owner of Donatelles Restaurant, represented by Wendell Smith, to allow for a reduction in the parking lot setback for the restaurant located at 2400 Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned B -3, Highway Business District and is legally described as follows: Tract A. That part of the Southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota: which lies northerly of a line run parallel with and distant 33 feet northerly of the east and west quarter line of said Section 8, southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 75 feet southwesterly of Line 1 described below and westerly of Line 3 described below; Line 1. Beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of said Section 8, distant 848.5 feet west of the center thereof, thence run northwesterly at an angle of 40 degrees 07 minutes 00 seconds from said east and west quarter line (measured from west to north) for 400 feet and there terminating; Line 3. Beginning at a point or a line run parallel with and distant 75 feet southwesterly of Line 1 described above, distant 75 feet northwesterly of its intersection with a line run parallel with and distant 33 feet northerly of the east and west quarter line of said Section 8; thence run southwesterly to a point on said 33 feet parallel line, distant 65 feet westerly of said intersection and there terminating. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: I. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan, dated 10/21/98 WHEREAS, the parking lot for which this variance is requested was constructed in 1966 or thereabouts and conformed to City Code requirements at the time; and, Planning Commission Resolution 561 -98 Donatelles Variance November 18, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control, in that the Donatelles property is a small, unusual pie - shaped lot at the intersection of two major roadways through the City. Being less than an acre in area, the lot without question creates practical difficulties which the present owners did not create; and, WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that enforcement of the thirty -foot parking lot setback onto the Donatelles property after thirty years of operation in its present state would potentially deprive the property of as many as 50 parking stalls, a reduction that would effectively prohibit the restaurant from operating at that location; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the applicant is only seeking to improve the appearance and functionality of the parking lot and to lessen the extent of the nonconformity—the applicant did not create the conditions which necessitate the approval of a variance; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that Donatelles Supper Club was one of the first businesses located in the City of Mounds View, a fixture that has continued to do business through four decades to the present. Granting a variance in this situation would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege, in that any property owner in a similar circumstance would be given the same consideration; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship, in that the intent of the request is to lessen the extent of the existing nonconformity and to improve the overall appearance of the property; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other properties in the same zone in that the Zoning Code was not drafted with the intent to prevent a legally conforming business from improving its operation. Granting the requested variance would serve to Iegitimize a dimensional nonconformity which has been in existence for thirty years; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood in that granting this variance will improve the flow of traffic in and around the site and will be a benefit to public safety by closing the Highway 10 access from the Donatelles property. No property values will be diminished or impaired as a result of the Donatelles improvements. Planning Commission Resolution 561 -98 Donatelles Variance November 18, 1998 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of George Marvin, represented by Wendell Smith, to allow a five -foot setback for the existing parking lot located at 2400 Highway 10. Adopted this 18th day of November, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:IDATAIGROUPS1COMDENADE VCASES1538- 981561- 98A.RE8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS 'VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 4, 1998 Mounds 'eV City Hall 2401 Highway 10,1Vnds tew, MN 55112 1. Call To Order The meeting was called to order by Chairpersons 1998. 2e Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Coo i ,' sioners R (both,c ccused) er Stacy Caton Members Absent: Commissioners 0 Also present: Planning AssociattIim Ericsai and Also absent: Council Liai 41t I eJohnson, and Miller Planning Cash allow a Five-F0 2400 Highway ;tea sr 9 iscussion of request for a Variance to Donatelles Supper Club, Page 2 mot' Citizens' Requests art Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no b. izens' requests or comments on items Not on the Agenda. rgyigkoriVim utes o•• September 16, 1998 October 7, 1998 Motion/Second: Brasaemle /Johnson to approve the Mounds View Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, (Special), and October 7, 1998 (Regular) as published and amended. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Ayes -4 Motion carried. November 4, 1998 Page 2 Nays -0 Ericson asked the Commissioners if they would like to_see "A previous Planning Commission meetings. nutes" from Peterson said the Commission had never requeste that would continue to be the Commission's wis S. Staff Reports/Information Items A. Preliminary Discussion of Parking Vii Club at 2400 Highway 10 - request. 9 Ericson gave his report as follows: ast Donatelle's Supper lot setback Donatelles is requesting a varianeto allow._ five -£o o 10 so that they may make im ements,: e 0 curb and gutter) remove th ss to of the par lot in thr`. would gain access to dom the,; drive ybetweer a �ropertyands an e pot n� g of trail JP- -s -E - As a resII to Donat 4tafE' was asking;; ng lot setback from Highway the par g' of (additional bituminous, ghway 1 d lessen the extent of the places conjunction with this, Donatelles and Highway 10 by means of a cut a eater property. This layout will increase safety entering and exiting Donatelles. vements, ten additional parking stalls would be added mission for their input prior to the drafting of a resolution. Brasaemle askedr clarification in regard to lighting plans. Ericson stated the existing lighting would ! $ain "as is The sign will be moved to the northwest corner of the parking lot. idscaping improvements will be made in the median areas in between the "curb and.. r and property lines. :rst7n expressed his concern that the scale of the access lane that goes past the northeast corner of Donatelle's facility was too small. Brasaemle suggested that Ericson ask Donatelle's what their plans are for remedying pedestrian access to the facility from the north parking lot. Currently the customers would have to walk in the access lane that Peterson was referring to. Ericson suggested making that area of parking "employee parking" only. Johnson and Brasaemle said that a "No thru Traffic" sign may have to be Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 4, 1998 Page 3 installed at the Donatelle's lot to keep people from cutting through the Iot just to access H -2 or Highway 10; or possibly a sign that states " Donatelle's Customer Parking Only." Miller asked for a clarification in regard to snow removal and tras,onters. Ericson said the trash container issue would not be addressed as art of part A foot setback request; although the owner has indicated they ar go „ ;o beait A a. The snow removal issue will be brought up to Donatelle's at Ericson stated the public hearing for the issue is November 18, 1998. B. Discussion of City Remnant Parcel Ericson gave his report as follows: When Edgewood Drive is relocated a.t t site will be created which could belle elope Midland Videen property. Of the " '4 acre .5 acr possibly developable. Because3;4 e two site are con them together to get the b 8 '!clop 4;>1 The 0 . ,t. ,1, o meow Commisison to examine the mist appropriat dev meat acros Th Develop Videe tl'� devlip` the pt 'greens store' orner exnsiderin .Way 10. `a < ti ng Commit pprox.) acre remnant e area is the 9.4 acre for e °southwest corner of the site is ous, it would make sense to market ty Council has directed the Planning end through the comprehensive plan, t Community Center, City Hall and the Offer to Purchase the remnant parcel from TOLD II .OLD has a letter of intent to purchase the Midland •t provided details at this time about how they would y They've indicated that they would propose to develop a ble a restaurant if there is sufficient room on the site. Anthony Property has also expressed interest in the site and requested an opportunity to bid on the City, ant parcel. They have indicated that they would be interested in developing a€ ice building on the site. The City Council considered the offers and continue . ` nsideration indefinitely. They stated that it would be important to have tanning Commission review and input concerning what the land use should be parcels involved. Staff is working with SEH to finalize the plans for the street realignment project which will determine the final configuration of the remnant parcel. Staff was asking the Planning Commission for their input and to recommend a specific use for the sites in question. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 4, 1998 Page 4 Brasaemle expressed his concern that the sites would not make good park space because of the closeness to traffic and control lights. Commissioner Stevenson had also made this point at an earlier Commission meeting. Brasaemle said he was also conced with the possibility of a Walgreens store next to the new City Center. Because Commissioners Stevenson and Obert were was tabled to a later Planning Commission meetin C. Resignation of Planning Commissione' ion of the issue Brasaemle suggested, as part of the process of rep Planning Commission applications that had been s Marshall Johnston had resigned. Motion/Second: Brasaemle /Johnson to r41! advertise the open seat on the Planning:; • y Planning Commission applicants if; want, ____y vacancy; and that the Planning Cnissio have art- recommend a candidate to fi oks, that the Council review er in the year when Gam. u�YSY:� vas that the 't •nciJ direct staff to that staff ask the previous considered for the current pity to interview and cen:/ The,: a thanks pied Commissioner Brooks' resignation with its sincere tension of Comprehensive Plan Submittal Deadline zS, ;Ericson gave his The Metropolitai Council has indicated that over half of the communities in the metropolitanaa have or will be requesting extensions on their Comprehensive Plan ° Jpdates. ed process and schedule for completion was stated as follows: 1. Draft Plan completion January 29, 1999 2, Planning Commission community forums (one or two) - February 3. Planning Commission formal public hearing - March/April 4. Approval/submittal of Comprehensive Plan Update to Metropolitan Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 4, 1998 Page 5 Council April/May 5. The Metropolitan Council has 60 days to approve or recommend changes 6. Final adoption by the City Council June 2, 1999 Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recd_ they pass a resolution requesting a six -month exten Updated Comprehensive Plan and direct staff to c paperwork to the Metropolitan Council. end t a o the ete ands 0 • -ty that o submittal of an essary The Planning Commission directed staff to cony for a, Comprehensive Plan Update completion dat ty Council its rte- o apply 6, Chairperson and Planning Commissioners 16 orts Ericson told the Commission the Holidaj requested and approved in the deveIQni installed at the facility. Peterson ash "d if an stated there is an RV dump site o the sout;' re will ti 0. �. ing the light baffles as vIre rinkL system has also been iii ad been installed. Ericson Ericson stated the discussic deferred until the next PI. attenLance. And thek wit ; • er. o:r, v, • 0 ilding. omprensive P o _ sion me e Commissioners. Erasaele Co iision luncil, despite s forward rather tli elected officials. Public Facilities element will also be g because not all Commissioners are in ommission work session meeting during &the rec ®' `'It would be my hope that we [the Planning cordial and cooperative working relationship with the incoming etdifferences may have existed in the past; that we need to move fishing old business." Congratulations were extended to all newly e rest of the Commission concurred with .Erasaemle's comments. Adjournment 'o the Agenda Meeting Avittg no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson lied the meeting at 7:48 p.m. (The Agenda Session was held immediately following the adjournment of the Regular Session.) Respectfully submitted, Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting Rick Jopke Community Development Director November 4, 1998 Page 6 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 7 :00 P.M. FLE_GULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes a. November 4, 1998 5. Planning Case No. 542 -98 Property Involved: 2206 Hillview Road Consideration of Resolution No. 562 -98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Request to Allow for a Residential Dog Kennel Use. Applicant: Tammy Schmitt. 6. Planning Case No. 539 -98 [Public Hearing] Property Involved: 2223 HiIlview Road Consideration of Resolution No. 563 -98, a Resolution Denying a Variance Request to Allow a Zero -Foot Driveway Setback. Applicant: Blacktop Paving of MN, Representing Ted Jarvis, Property Owner. 7: Planning Case No. 541 -98 Property Involved: 2430 Highway 10 Consideration of Resolution No 564 -98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Preliminary Plat to Subdivide a 25 -acre parcel into Seven Lots. Applicant: Anthony Properties, Represented by Wendell Smith. 8. Planning Case No. 538 -98 [Public Hearing] Property Involved: 2400 Highway 10, Donatelles Supper Club Consideration of Resolution No. 561 -98, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Allow for a Reduced Front Yard setback for a Parking Lot in a Commercial District. Applicant: Donatelles, Represented by Wendell Smith 9. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Setting of a Public Hearing for Wednesday, December 16, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112, to consider amending Chapter 1121 of the City Code regarding curb cuts on corner lots in single - family residential districts. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 AGENDA Page 2 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 11, Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717 -4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of the November 18, 1998, minutes of the Planning Commission N:I DATAIGROUPS ICOMDEVIPLANCOMMIPCAG EN DA1 [ 9981 [ 2 -2 -9 8.AGN REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: December 2, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 542 -98 Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Dog Kennel Petitioner: Tammy Schmitt Location: 2206 Hillview Road PIN Nos. 05- 30 -23 -43 -0004 Zoning/Land Use: R -1, Single - Family Residential / Single Family Home Applicable Regulations: • Municipal Code Section 701.03, Subdivisions 1, 3, and 15, regarding the licensing of dogs and operation of kennels. • Municipal Code Section 1106.04, Subdivision 3, which requires a conditional use permit for residential dog kennels in an R-1, Single Family Residential district. • Municipal Code Section 1125.01, Subdivision 3b, which identifies the criteria to be used for granting a conditional use permit. Attachments: Background: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. 500 Foot Map 4. Petition 5. Letter from Applicant 6. Resolution No. 562 -98 The applicant, Tammy Schmitt of 2206 Hillview Road, is applying for a conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel, a Code requirement for property owners with three or four dogs. One of the licensing requirements is that the property owner shall obtain signatures of approval from more than 50 percent of the residents within 500 feet of the property proposing the kennel. The applicant was sent a map showing those properties within 500 feet along with a corresponding list of property owners /taxpayers. Analysis: On the map staff sent to the applicant, 62 properties were highlighted, which means that 32 of the property owners would need to sign a petition in favor of the kennel application. The applicant collected signatures approving of the kennel request from 44 of the highlighted properties, well in excess of the required 32 signatures. The three properties adjacent to Ms. Schmitt, as well as those properties directly across the street, have indicated their approval of the application. Planning Commission report Schmitt Kennel CUP December 2, 1998 Page 2 Staff has inquired with the Police Department regarding any calls or complaints associated with dogs at Ms. Schmitt's home, and to the best of their knowledge, there have been none. Ms. Schmitt currently owns two dogs, both of which are kept inside, as will the proposed third dog. The backyard to Ms. Schmitt's home is being completely fenced in to contain the dogs. CUP Criteria: 1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area in that dog ownership does not impose any burden to public facilities. 2. The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land in that the subject property's yard is fenced in and dog ownership is a common facet of any residential neighborhood.. 3 The structure and site will does not have an appearance that will have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 4. The use is reasonably related to the existing land use in that dogs are common feature in residential neighborhoods. 5. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use in that dog kennels are a conditional use within the R -1 zoning district.. 6. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 562 -98, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit for a dog kennel for Tammy Schmitt, located at 2206 Hillview Road. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:IDATAIG ROUPS\CO MD EV1DEVCAS ES\ 542.9S1KENNEL. PC [ trrr Partwat 1∎\.��° Applicant Information Name of Applicant Address =�(✓ i `aC� Nd COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612-717 -4020 612-784-3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form 0 Interest in Property (check appropriate box) X Owner of Property • Lessee, Operator, Manager • Other (explain) Telephone Fax L�a�33o�5� c �• tom! - `1`iS -(, °, Ne 4 Contract for Deed Owner 0 Agreement to Purchase Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to he accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or C-enerral Location Legal Description Property Identification # (PIN #) # of Acres Current Zoning Type of Application • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Rezoning ▪ Major Subdivision • Minor Subdivision • Planned Unit Development (PUD) a PUD Amendment Conditional Use Permit O Variance O Code Appeal o Develop Review /Site Plan • Wetland Alteration Permit a Wetland Buffer Permit O Floodplain Permit • Other S250 S250/acre; min S250 max 51500 S2.50 + S250 deposit* S200 Refer to rezoning fees S350 R -1, R -2 S75; all others 5250 R -1, R -2 S100 all others 5250 5100 S 125 /acre; thin 5125 max 5750 R-1, R -2 5150; all others 5200 R -1, R -2 525; all others 5 100 5200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices. materials and stall or consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days atter consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, YIN Development Application Present Use of Property D Undeveloped/Vacant X Single Family Dwelling , O Duplex/Two Family Dwelling a Multi - family Dwelling a Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Industrial Establishment O Other (explain) Property Classification o Abstract 0 Torrens Descr iption of Proposal Page 2 BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS, TRUE AND ACCURATE. r1 . Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner dk fog z7r Name ofProperry Owner ( typed/primed) 774 PIA rl,t~1 WC Lr Nl (= itjvt Address of Owner ( \ tr k 1 Phone Number of Owner lam\ .® ip 1a — tis. i aa f n E .`} Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Planning Case No. Application: Park Dedication: Deposits: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 60-dav Limit Assigned to: 120 -day limit Fees Paid: Account Check # Receipt # Other: Total: IY:I D ATAIG R O UPSIC O M D E V I FO R M SM E V AP P. FO R 1/98 R-5 01.10 P COLONIAL VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK HILLVI DR 5618 5612 5606 5600 5562 5556 5550 5544 5538 5532 5526 5520 Id CC OAKW � 111 O00 ..� r. N F N N r .. _ �...... t„Z to ggamilons N N N co tN 0 TERRA N • N N WDH: yr oo N N N N N PINEWOOD .... ./R rn m 0o h `° w 0 rU In N NL7� N N N N N ..... OAKWOOD PARK j 5590 PF 5472 5511 5503 DR cD cD CV N N 10 td7 N 10 N N N N co N n N 04 N ri tD N N n N N N N 0 N 0 N co 04 0 N O 0, 4 N d' 0 N Q 0 N O a N N rn 13 N n 0, 0 (NI N tri co 0 N a N N -a' N u N z cD CD N 0➢ tt N N to N (O .Y N c0 N p) M N N co N N c$ N 0 N iY 0 N Q DI N Q (2) N '.T m 000 ca N O N 5 a in N N r` 10 N DS N tpn' N N • - . . . N M 1'] r N,N N .--N rn r N — N p7 0 r N r Da 0 N — ai Q N to ca Q N r. n 0 N 1` 0 N ffalassarossi 5sw�— 5493 5485 PINEWOOD SCHOOL 5500 5475 Zoning Map Applicant: Location: Planning Case 542 -98 Tammie Schmitt 2206 Hillview Road Li) cD N 0) N n 10 (0 °Y Is 1 N tti n INTERSTATE N 500 Foot Radius Map — 2206 Hillview Road Tammy Schmitt, CUP Application Lois Drive Hillview Road ■ Oakwood Drive III I I I I BiRgifila Properties within 500 Feet of 2206 Hillview Road Mounds View Parcels 0 c) 0 ©ate Schmitt's Residential Kennel License Petition 2206 Hillview Road, Mounds View, MN 1 don't mind that the Schmitt family of 2206 Hiilview Road is acquiring a third dog (an 8 year d Great - indoor house dog) which requires the attainment of a Kennel License. Signature: a Signature: 3 Signature: 4 Signature:` S- Signature: ,ignature: ignature: ignature: 1„,_ / 111 . 7,.J ignature: /t. 6-(t( (iij c Signature: Signature: 10 Signature: 1a i3 Signature: Signature: Address: ?2c 7 J, v l e Address: 42QO �A 1 / V l c°rr ! Rd Address: cZ ) - ! 412 Address: 13a-0 1� Address:, Address. Address: Z-2 / //✓ f e &Li A, Address: ,V3" 1-4{ )LL f, ) 4e6 Address: 'G'j; M-1 V(.e,“) Address: ..)-7/7' Signature: Address: Address: Address: Address: /( r/ eR.17"7 Col( .3a (1, ea c #Avvbod oe-. Address:- 1 /'z'S~ i`1 /Woo. Ji 10.�t Addr. -s: r;.)o',S1 00- tVV00 C� as s Q tip Signature: 4-1 Signature: 5 Signature: 11 Signature: Signature: ' ,S Address: ° L 5 i.�p D� D- (YcL �t6 \1 t EIS Address: Address: �Y 7 Address: 110 Address: 1 UJ,` Address: 1 73 Address: <421- 0 7 t r C-��✓r tf -►'ci? J, lr 2rnjf ,Jy- Schmitt's Residential Kennel License Petition 2206 Hillview Road, Mounds View, MN don't mind that the Schmitt family of 2206 Hiliview Road is acquiring a third dog (an 8 year old reat ba e - indoor house dog) which requires the attainment of a Kennel License. Signature: a ` Signature: Signature: Signature: 940 Signature: Signature: Signature: Signature: a1, L /VV '1,/4 Signature: iS . t� .cue , E fLc ) Signature: 3a , Signature: 33, Signature: Signature: 36 Signature: ignature: 30• ignature: GG . 7 . Signature: a' \G ,N-\ 5 ,� f , 3 Signature: 3 _Signature:Q L t �, .Signature: 1, 1 Signature: Signature: Signature: Signature: Signature: • Address: 3-15 c 1)Y Address: 2-0 5) j/ Address::— 1 Address: (( ( 1 (E Address: asap 00jci,ccd Addr ss: 2 i ) 7 oO (L z)a v 6_)) i� (,n; i� ;—, Address: Address: Address: Address: ;2‘ 1 T ,��c -- PR. Address: / (/? _ Address: /5 4.-Ark� / Address: Address: Address: Address: Address: Address: Address: Address: Address: Address: Address: Address: Address: Sr? / 44. /,/,/- CCK " 1),t c 1 (5-r /gyp J l K i2(fGC Of Monday, November 09, 1998 Cid Jim Erickson and the Mounds View City Council Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Mr. Erickson and the City Council: Please accept the attached Conditional Use Permit along with a Petition signed by neighbors (over 50% of those occupying land within five hundred feet of our property). This permit will be used to obtain a Residential Kennel License in order to adopt a third dog - an 8 year old spayed Great Dane. She will be an indoor house dog and will not be left outside. She gets along wonderfully with our two neutered male Shelties (4 %z and 5 years old) and only barks when she is alarmed - which isn't too often. I am very strict with our dogs on barking - basically, they very rarely bark. We are very responsible pet owners are currently (as a hobby) starling the process of getting the Canine Good Citizenship Award for our two dogs and would like to for the additional dog, also. The Shelties are currently in obedience training and we would like to put the additional dog in training, also. We keep the Dropping (dog poop) picked up on a regular basis and are very consciences whenever we take our dogs out in public in regards to cleaning up after them and controlling their behavior. Your approval of this would be very, very much appreciated as we would also like the additional dog for protection. l am a single working mother and our house has had an attempted break -in this past Spring (reported to the police) while my 12 year old daughter was at home waiting for the school bus - I was in transit to work. The Shelties are small (30# each) and friendly to everyone - the Great Dane is very large (160#) and protects my daughter. Thank you for your time and consideration. If there are any questions, please feel free to call me at home 785 -0956 or at work 330 -5077. Sincerely, 4 ammy Schmi The Schmitt Family Z206 Hlliviewr Road Mounds View, MN 55112 612330 -5077 512.785-0958 tkschm .. tllsbury.com IW MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 562 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A DOG KENNEL FOR TAMMY SCHMITT, 2206 HILLVIEW ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 542-98 WHEREAS, Tammy Schmitt has applied for a conditional use permit for a residential dog kennel at her property located at 2206 Hillview Road, property zoned R -1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: LOT 4, BLOCK 6, PINEWOOD TERRACE NO. 3, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, three to four dogs at a single - family residence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. 500 Foot Radius Map d. Petition e. Applicant's Statement WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the signatures on the submitted petition are valid and meet the licensing requirement for residential dog kennels; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: (1) (7) (8) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Owning dogs, as many as four, will not have an impact to public facilities, nor generate additional traffic or cause congestion. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. Resolution 56298 Schmitt Kennel CUP December 2, 1998 Page 2 (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The dogs will be separated from the adjoining properties by a fence, which will prevent the dogs from running loose through the neighborhood. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Having dogs as pets is a common part of the suburban residential experience, an activity which does not conflict with the zoning code nor the comprehensive plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit to the City Council, with the following recommended stipulations: 1. No more than four dogs over the age of six months shall be allowed at the property. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for paying an annual license fee (currently thirty dollars) upon approval of this permit and again on or before every first of September thereafter. 3. The applicant shall maintain the yard in a clean, quiet, orderly, and sanitary condition. 4. The backyard shall be completely fenced in to prevent the dogs from leaving the property. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 2nd day of December, 1998. ATTEST: (SEAL) Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Rick Jopke, Community Development Director NADATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDE VCASES15 42- 9 815 6 2- 9 8PC.RES REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: Staff` Report by: Planning Case No.: Request: Petitioner: Location: PIN No. Zoning/Land Use: Applicable Regulations: Attachments: Background: December 2, 1998 James Ericson, Planning Associate 539 -98 Variance to Allow a Zero -Foot Driveway Setback Blacktop Paving of MN, Representing Ted Jarvis, Property Owner 2236 Hillview Road 05- 30 -23 -43 -0008 R -1, Single Family Residential / Single Family Home Section 1104.01. Subd. 4c(1)(a): Sets minimum setback for a driveway at one foot, provided abutting property owner indicates their permission. Section 1125,02. Subd. 2: Criteria for granting variances. 1. Development Application, dated 11/10/98 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Public Hearing Notice 5. Job Estimate, dated 5/5/98 6. Letter to Property Owner, dated 8/18/98 7. Building Permit Application, dated 8/19/98 8. Letter from Contractor to Rick Jarson, dated 8/19/98 9. Letter to Contractor, dated 10/22/98 10. Driveway Encroachment Agreement, dated 11/15/98 11. Planning Commission Resolution No. 563 -98 Blacktop Paving of Minnesota, representing the property owner of 2236 Hillview Road- -Ted Jarvis - -is requesting a variance from the Code requirement that specifies that driveways shall maintain at least a one -foot setback from a property line. This summer, Blacktop Paving of Minnesota installed a twelve foot expansion to Mr. Jarvis' driveway, without having obtained a building permit. Had the permit been applied for prior to the installation, the contractor or homeowner would have been told that driveways need to be located at least one foot from the property line. Blacktop Paving of MN Variance Request Planning Case No. 539 -98 December 2, 1998 Page 2 Staff, on routine inspections in this neighborhood, observed a fresh driveway expansion clearly too close to the property line, at which time it was discovered that no permit had been obtained. Staff contacted the property owner, Ted Jarvis, who provided the name of the contractor -- Blacktop Paving of Minnesota. While the contractor did arrange to obtain and pay for a building permit upon notification by City Staff, repeated attempts to resolve the encroachment issue were not successful until November 10, 1998, at which time the development application was received. All correspondence is attached for the Commission's reference. Analysis: According to Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4c(1)(a), recently amended by Ordinance 620, driveways shall be located no closer to a property line than one foot, provided the adjoining neighbor grants permission for such encroachment. The affected neighbor -- Jennifer Kordiak -- residing at 2228 Hillview Road, had not granted permission at the time the driveway was installed. Ms. Kordiak has since provided the City with an executed form indicating her permission to allow a driveway within five feet of her property. Variance Criteria: The criteria for granting a variance are stated in Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 of the City Code. There are seven standards which need to be met in order to justify the Board of Adjustments and Appeal's granting of a variance. The Codes of this City have been put into place to ensure the orderly growth and development of the community while simultaneously protecting the health, safety, general welfare, comfort and repose of the residents. To deviate from these Codes, there must be a compelling reason to do so. There must be a hardship applicable to the property or situation that has not been created by the applicant. In other words, a hardship situation is present when the strict application of the Zoning Code makes reasonable use of the property impractical. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship. Each of the criteria are listed below with a short response in relation to this particular variance request. 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to this property which are out of the owners control: There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would prompt the granting of this variance. This criterion cannot be met. 2. Literal interpretation of Code would deprive applicants rights commonly enjoyed by others in the same district: When permits are issued for the installation of driveways, the plans are reviewed to ensure that all work performed will conform to the Codes of the City. The strict application of the Code is consistently and uniformly done without any deviation. Had the contractor or resident applied for the building permit before starting the work, they would have been informed that what they proposed was not allowable. This criterion cannot be met. Blacktop Paving of MN Variance Request Planning Case No. 539 -98 December 2, 1998 Page 3 3. Special conditions do not result from actions of the applicant: The condition which would warrant the granting of a variance is the direct cause of the applicant. Again, had the contractor or resident applied for the building permit before starting the work, they would have been informed that what they proposed was not allowable. This criterion cannot be met. 4. Granting this variance will not confer onto the applicant a special privilege: Granting of this variance would confer onto the applicant a special privilege not afforded to others in the same district, in that the City Code specifically prohibits driveways from encroaching any closer than one foot to an adjoining property. This criterion cannot be met. 5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. From staffs perspective, there is no hardship. Given that assessment, this question is not applicable and thus, the criterion can not be met. 6. The granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Title or to other ro ert owners in his dis rict. The intent and purpose of the Code with regard to driveway placement is clear. The one -foot minimum setback is a means to protect both property owners involved - -the applicant and neighbor, in the event that a survey of the lot were to show the dividing lot line in a different location, such as on the driveway as opposed to next to the driveway. This criterion cannot be met. 7. This variance will not impair the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. increase congestion on public streets. endanger public safety, or substantially diminish property values in the neighborhood. While granting of this variance would not impair the supply of air and light to the adjacent property owners, the impact to property values or public safety may not be as clear. It would not be expected that traffic would increase as a result of the encroaching driveway. This criterion probably can be met. Except for the last, none of the criteria can be met. According to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the City Code, a variance may be granted only when all of the seven criteria are met. It is staff's position that there is no hardship, and as such, no variance should be granted. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution 563 -98, a resolution denying the variance request of Blacktop Paving of Minnesota to permit a zero -foot setback for a driveway and requiring said contractor to remove one- foot's width of pavement, restoring area with sod, weather permitting. James Ericson, Planning Associate NADATAIGROUPS1COMDE V1DE VCASE51539 -981 VARIANC E.RPT r „u,ei,E +Q .m €,�it,c tnt Information `1,:1. :r AFrNh n 1 COMNUNZTY DEVELOPK4:NT D £PAR MEr' 1. DEVELOPI,LENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Ni..,unds Vi,ew MN 55112 612717 -4020 6127134 -3462 - FAX Please Type or Print information - Complete Both Sid of This Fo...::e . a c C � (f7a,(1 n o � 1 = h f l es of Tc14,1.: 70V� 75—C- 0 Fax 7 96 c( - 41(9rD iU p intei..yt iu Pr,rirrr.� (cheek appiopcLate box) 0wucl kit'?ruperty 0 Contract for Decd ()mi. :. ± er,:ie-, Operator, Mudge: 0 Agreement to P+ircha:'a Orkci (tN)iaui} :# rtit pruw-ide evidence of interest it property at the time of application, and it'yt,.: ire out the uwuxr of thie r4p,rrv, :;vu w,jst provide a letter of permission from the. owner giving consent to for tiliti; •.t this application. 1 be u+iurr mu.4t Nig'n this application for It u. he ka.cepted. . I4 4ir.tr 9)c,scripiioenikt'npu.ral i sc 1e :al '+.oc.auun -.;tom ?� uriptlu” 1', c+p.a•ty _Jer.ttlficitti,,rc 4 WIN #) rti T `a B Lr7C,K Cat Pin Et ot0 TEgArAcC * 3 OS- 30 — 23- Lib - oav 2.g R -t r1C�Q2 Lfllt + AAt i UDC 3 •vJrr,l',rct.cnuive PE= Altaen,dro nt O te7on.ag • ;y1djut Subitvisio:i • Mimi Subdivision lilt Dc cl :+praetlt(Pi'T) .ka,cadrnent • C.•t -,:wittili;.il 1) c Pc :riuil Code 4ppeai ▪ Devil :ip Revictv!Site Plan r7 W rltaid ,kkeration i- ra7a'it to 'arct:;and Buffet Ferran G riosidplaut Permit $250 $250lat.-rc. min 3230 r _•. 1;1506 3250 + 3250 deposrte 3200 Refill- to rCZuaulg fees $3501 R.i, R -2. $75', all other R.I. R -2 $ilac) all otlis,..1,250 3 € 251 acre; thin S 1 _> 5 u ., 11,-,150 R -1, R -2 $150, all odic_, 200 ft- I , R -2 $25; all otl>e :r, 4,1:30 3200 ^C)r €. +rsir✓ Lbail be paid :a, Caver in costs of public r.ouces. materials and staff or consultant, tone spent in ale review, c..t iu :itcrials :t�soi:iateu with 1hia application. The applictuat shall be iz.spc ihle for all reaacuill,le J c inil :nl rlcpu.'51t on:oun'.. Any portico of the deposit not ;pent or crac• <,,,hered 5`:111 he rcduit.led (ii,_ € ii:. :c 'itiil .rise'} ! 3 :11 Ji:\'z, after cnnsidc: atiori Of tilt dr..pltcatiun is o'311171e4ed. P1easte complete the reverse side of this applicaatioa• . .•9 -a ....ay. 1(.1'; L1 P.14.,un1. ew„%.11% awn: AppiicatiOil (.%..xpic411.1) L Fanaly Dwc11134. Muln-lamily Dwelling 0 Inausui E*abLAuurnit TOTT CEIS Vag- otACe n.eecf edt zqr abitee‘ni cfrAtaw c C).:k) c.):1 -D-trs APPLICA1 t•O:q I DECLA1-z.13 TNAT, TO LrENT OF MY PL 01?-tvIA T.I()N klitt,WIDED IS TP.t..I AND Ac.CLAA ::7■14SI.uls' Arip:ICSII1 Na rd .-Lppbc‘Lni i'047irf- ;•,,.u... 1.1,u11m' Tce v • s g I I II olkw f ac4 Mactii\cts Ut* e ( A ) mid 44(7 .."4“..h.v..,,..**444+4,1,1:.**44.4.4-01,4•*4*.g4,4,4‘4,04.1.414•44,1"1"1“1,44441.P.941.4***4.0"1.4“,11' OFFICL USE ONLY NCt.}.-n-4,- /0 ctq 6 ag, As6ipeLl .1.A.4-11_, 11— Se, M)-1.sar :nut /2 2O-th1yLflL 3-4/ Account Chcck Rz-cc pt Page 2 rel N o r N 0 7 n re) r°) ne N (NI N w000 (n 1 LLI U_ 5615 5619 5612 560 5600 5613 5607 5601 5562 5556 5550 5544 5538 5532 5526 5520 RD 556J 5557 5551 5545 5539 5533 5527 5521 z L4 I. (J) r. W co N N N N R1 N N OAKWOOD PARK 5590 PF td) N. N N N 0, u0 N 5520 5480 5474 5479 5473 5512 5504 5494 5486 5478 Zoning Map Applicant: Location: Planning Case 539 -98 Blacktop Paving of MN 2236 Hillview Road 5511 5505 5499 5493 5485 5475 0 z 0 N N N N cv co 00 LO N N (0 N N ao c. n rf C u7 N N co 0' N N (.4 N N re re) (V PINEWOOD SCHOOL 5500 �7 4 MMINAM 1111111111111 111111111111111111 MI111111111110 11111,11111111 g1■1111011111gl MIA moo ME IM OUN MU 11111111 MENEM 111Ml■ AM= NEM IMMIIII =MIAMI MmAm CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW LOCATION MAP Applicant: Blacktop Paving of MN Property: 2236 Hillview Road Request: Variance PLANNING CASE NO. 539-98 2236 Hiltview Road Properties Within 350' 111 111 Immuumg MIA All ■•=11 Mr. 1111 rim 2111111111112 1111111111111111 ginnill A 11111PAIIMB A • it• 1:111:41140"1 VAir413 il :Li 1 I AO 101110 MUMil off. MN= WWI Mem 0,1 UNS 0 tin r el 0 4■400 doh.. b Usual .11 rue snot 1111214110i12111 41111111//iiiiii 11111181/181 IIIISININgollil iawm 2236 Hillview Road 111111111111 1111MMIN IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111 11111111111;1 CZ 11111111111111 p Ir111f11111 INIFJw7 ■1l11J1U1II • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mounds View Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, December 2, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, to consider a driveway variance requested by Blacktop Paving of Minnesota for the property located at 2236 Hillview Road. The property is legally known as: Lot 8, Block 6, Pinewood Terrace No. 3 Ramsey County, Minnesota The variance request is to allow a driveway installation up to the edge of the property line. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heard at this meeting. If you are unable to attend the meeting but wish to comment, you may submit a letter to James Ericson, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. The letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Copies of the plans are available for review at City Hall. If you have any questions regarding this meeting or if you want to make an appointment to review the plans, please contact me at 717 -4022. James Ericson Planning Associate This notice is mailed to property owners within 350 feet of subject property. This notice published in the Bulletin Newspaper November 18, 1998. .61LACg,TOP PAVING OF MINNESOTA, INC. P.O. Box 49398 - - -9ne, MN 55449 -0398 .2) 784 -0755 800- 47283399 CUSTOMER: DATE: c - 5-- 3 Jr /`/1 /V. Job Estimate GARAGE SLAB/APRON INSPECTION UNDERGROUND LINES WATER SHUTOFF PERMIT GOPHER ONE CALL ># P.O. # MAP PAGE JOB NAME/LOCATION IF OTHER THAN AT LEFT. PHONE If - •7 -i WORK # -7 1- 94/ 44.1.71 OWNER: JOB DESCRIPTION /DIAGRAM • GRADE AND BASE ASPHALT SURFACING r ` .. / f / ? t_ 7 1 c, TnIS ESTIMATE iS FOR COMPLETING THE JOB AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. IT s5 BASED ON OUR EVALUATION AND DOES NOT INCLUDE MATERIAL PRICE INCREASES OR ADDITIONAL LABOR AND MATERIALS WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED SHOULD UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS OR ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS ARISE AFTER THE WORK HAS STARTED. i ESTIMATED / 1 15, * PERMIT .O6 COST 7) CHARGE THIS ESTIMATE MAY BE WITHDRAWN IF NOT ACCEPTED IN ESTIMATED -- -•- BY DAYS ;-- I __ i I III r _. - -_ - i 1 ■a� MIIMIIIIIRMI ■111111111111 I ! E im ■ Ell W=MI i ... ° �° i 1 ' i ■! mare I : . f r 1� MEM ■■r�� NM . . 1 ' , 1 IMIIIIMIIIIMIEMEI 111111111= i ! E . 11131111111 MUM 1111=111 ore.= mums- i E "•IUw■M11■u •■ruu■'ua ■111.MIw■11 1 ■M11■IMII■EIMI MIME MAIM ■$! 11wM aME■■NIU■■■w I MAIM ■UM= �II`ME 1 1 ■ 1 I II ■ ■1 1 , ;n'IM ■11w■u I111111111011. I` GRADE AND BASE ASPHALT SURFACING r ` .. / f / ? t_ 7 1 c, TnIS ESTIMATE iS FOR COMPLETING THE JOB AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. IT s5 BASED ON OUR EVALUATION AND DOES NOT INCLUDE MATERIAL PRICE INCREASES OR ADDITIONAL LABOR AND MATERIALS WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED SHOULD UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS OR ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS ARISE AFTER THE WORK HAS STARTED. i ESTIMATED / 1 15, * PERMIT .O6 COST 7) CHARGE THIS ESTIMATE MAY BE WITHDRAWN IF NOT ACCEPTED IN ESTIMATED -- -•- BY DAYS CF CMOS A • octrest ® Partne0 August 18, 1998 Theodore & Arlene Jarvis 2236 Hillview Road Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Jarvis: Phone: (612) 717 -4000 Fax: (612) 784 -34 The City is aware that you are making some improvement to your property, specifically, adding to your existing blacktop driveway. The City appreciates your efforts in maintaining or upgrading your property, however, we would like to make you aware that Mounds View Code requires that a building permit be obtained prior to this type of work. Please contact either myself at 717 -4020 or Building Inspector Rick Jarson at 717 -4024 for further information regarding the permit process, or stop by City Hall to apply for a building permit. Office hours are Monday -Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The City is requesting a response from you by August 24, 1998. Please be informed that a final inspection is also required for this project. Thank you Sincerely, CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW Barb Benesch Community Development Department Administrative Assistant cc: Rick Jarson, Building Inspector Rick Jopke, Community Development Director 00.1(1 c(. ,r2.2204te-c, 6/A 501' K1„. "")c1 'PL-1/1 62A2A--itt Y9 YYtti S(Aly 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 56112 - 1409/ .n Equal Cpponunrly Employer Fermi ?.a •l' 1.1 ©CtTYOF lil: ti9.Hc)2 11CGN a .yi I ant :o completcl nurnoerod spaces only. l� SITE ADDRESS OWNER MAlhADDRESS ZIP P1iONE 2 itidore P cTaruis -.;-33G P:iivtew Rd., V taiumtsUl.ew,Niilsrrl,. '216-SUtt 7 r CUN11rAICTCR �} MAIL ADORES'S (� p qy ZIP PHONE N . l .CC AC—ri ip ly CLU 1 k� �f M J.70 C. , Pe bly..N 3 a B (Qi{Rt r '.l� 51.1-1_(6. { ft/'� %3 ARCHI°t•CT /Q 5I(NF 'ENGINEE.9 /J MAR.4000E5S ZIP PHONE Icf 1 1111. 11111 USE OF 6UILDING DESCRIBE WOR _ i S-*ta. C� lca-f` vAL'UAT,ON ur WoFK - - - -�® 117.°' NOTICE f1E 0EP.MI' uEGQ fI S NULL ANO VOID IF WORK OR CCNSTRUCT1CN AUTHORIZED I5 NOT COMMENCED WITHIN Et LAYS. OR ti: CONSTRUCTION OR ! ^!ORA IS SUSPENoED OA AEAtdDQNED FOR A PERIOD OF 12D DAYS 41- AN via.4E AFTER WORK 1S COMMENCED. +-1ERE3Y CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION ANO KNOW THE SAME TO 0E TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL P, ': lS:oN5 OF SAWS AND QR71NANCE5 r,,OVERNINO THIS TYPE OF WORK '+.1LL BE cOMrtIED WITH WHETHEFI SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NCT , The GRANTIN© pF A PERMIT CCES NoT PRESUME TO .LIVE AUTHORITY TO '.10LATE DA CANCEL THE PRG41StON3 OF ANY OTHER STATE DR LOCAL LAW me3L.LATIIIG CONSTRUCTION DF THE PERFORMANCE OF CO STRUCTION III V) 97 ?/ff. SIGAATU E OF CONTRACTOR CR L.THORIZED AGENT MATE) .51c,N ITL:RE , F OWNER (:r= OWNER BUILDER, (DATE) IMPORTANT TO APPLICANT — PLEASE READ :SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR: PL,;A,IE31NG +� !- (EATING, VENTILATING CA AIR CONDITIONING M_ ELEC rRICAL BLACKTCPPING # SEWER h & WATER * THIS IS AN APPLICATION ONLY THE I'Ef =MIT WILL BE ISSUED AFTER RE'SIEWAL OF THE APPI_,C.:,TION, Tyte �! Gxii US* Zos+# Sr. d Ihdp Crootali 34.R Me of Srorw Rau ad 7 Ye, u .N7 Of, STREET PAP[('NCSP CT:S u', OTHER (5wdy) E,A.5e+Eur1 C r.% • N .! ' •i, : r. 11 f' Li 11'; .IN1.4'e11a sCCERISD .v CoNTRACTOwS LP :EA,SEe nre.a C1.4elae0 ear mBr•®C�C� caa taa STSTG _.___... :.f 40T UEOUIREO 3 pvs }U1)19$ --(pi., 1 urc.,0 ,�A 3ERAearFEE .vr.a cEG SURC.,AFCF 3WM�.4'J4�F - C6f�Yra C1etex. 1 j rOTALFEf 1 AECE'PT f • ac toy P_aving::ofMinnesota, Pe O Box 49398, B(airi, MN 55449 -0398. (612) 784-0755 or - FAX (612) 784- 9542: August: 1.9;1998.• °ck 'Jar' son • City of Mounds View :'2401 Fhghway 10 Mounds.View, `. 51.12 = Dear Rick: - .. 'Building Application 2236 Frillview Roa( Mounds View :r A.4.- discussed •today; 'enclosed is a Building'Applicatior for the referenced address iiiich we overlooked in obtaining_for the asphalt driveway we installed for this customer.:` 1�lso ` .`, enclosed is a site diagram and our check for the fees used on the valua..tion' of $1, 173' for the drive: .,.1p, y�°gg�y- ��rp�y)+� Fee- .„ ,85-13r� Niray. ee Y Y -' •j �)..1 X59 Surcharge 'l -545.44 Total - • ' Please send'a copy of the ez�it so t .. - , - •. . -. -- , - - . • -..... . p hat 'we can assure the customer that this has been resolved. Thank you Sincerely, Lilas Anderson. • President • © OF October 22, 1998 Blacktop Paving of MN, Inc. P.O. Box 49398 Blaine, MN 55449 Dear Sir or Madam: Phone: (612) 717 -4000 Fax: (612) 784 -3462 The City has contacted you on three separate ocassions by phone regarding the driveway installation at 2236 Hillview Road.. You were informed that the driveway was installed too close to the property line and would, therefore, require a variance _ On August 26, 1998, you were faxed a planning application to complete for your variance request. To date, we have not received a response from you_ Please be informed that this property is in violation of the City's Zoning Code and that this matter must be addressed Please contact Jim Ericson, Planning Associate, at 717 -4022 to discuss this matter further. If we do not receive a response from you regarding this matter by Friday, October 30, 1998, an administrative offense will be issued which carries a fine of S100 per issuance. If you have any questions, please contact me at 717 -4020. Thank you. Sincerely, CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW B.Y Benesch Community Development Administrative Assistant &NMI II MINI 1SCIY INK K 2401 Highway 10 0 Mounds View, MN 55112 -1499 DRIVEWAY ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT property owner of 2228 Hillview Road, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, legally described as Lot 7, Block 6, Pinewood Terrace No. 3, do hereby grant my nonrescindable permission to allow the driveway located on 2236 Hillview Road, Mounds View, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 8, Block 6, Pinewood Terrace No. 3, and owned by Theodore Jarvis, to encroach within five (5.0) feet of my westernmost property line. I do hereby also hold the City of Mounds View harmless from any action resulting from the installation or maintenance of said driveway, now, or at any point int the future. roperty • er, 2228 Hillview Road) H J)j 9g (Date) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 563 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A ZERO -FOOT DRIVEWAY SETBACK AT 2236 HILLVIEW ROAD AS REQUESTED BY BLACKTOP PAVING OF MINNESOTA; PLANNING CASE NO. 539-98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of the applicant, Blacktop Paving of Minnesota, representing Ted Jarvis, property owner of 2236 Hillview Road; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential District and is legally described as: Lot 8, Block 6, Pinewood Terrace No. 3, Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. Development Application, dated 11/10/98 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Public Hearing Notice 5. Job Estimate, dated 5/5/98 6. Letter to Property Owner, dated 8118198 7. Building Permit Application, dated 8119198 8. Letter from Contractor to Rick Jarson, dated 8/19/98 9. Letter to Contractor, dated 10/22/98 10. Driveway Encroachment Agreement, dated 11/15/98 11. Planning Commission Resolution No. 563 -98 WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a variance from the City Code to allow for a zero -foot driveway setback; and, WHEREAS, the driveway expansion for which the variance has been requested has already been completed; and, WHEREAS, Blacktop Paving of Minnesota, the contractor that performed the work, failed to obtain a building permit prior to the driveway installation; and, Planning Commission Resolution 563 -98 Blacktop Paving of Minnesota Variance Request December 2, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, there are no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that apply to this property that would justify the granting of this variance request; and, WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the City Code does not deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district; and WHEREAS, the conditions which necessitate the variance request have been caused by the applicant in that the applicant failed to obtain a building permit for the work performed; and WHEREAS, granting this variance requested will confer on the applicants a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that driveways are required to maintain a minimum one -foot setback from adjoining properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, (1) denies the variance request of Blacktop Paving of Minnesota, representing Ted Jarvis, property Owner of 2236 Hillview Road, and (2) requires that Blacktop Paving of Minnesota remove a one- foot's width of pavement to bring the driveway into compliance with the City Code, restoring the ground to its previous condition. Adopted this 2nd Day of December, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEVIDE VCASES\539- 981VARIANCE. RES REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: Staff Report by: Planning Case No.: Request: Petitioner: Location: PIN No. Zoning/Land Use: Applicable Regulations: December 2, 1998 James Ericson, Planning Associate 541 -98 Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Wendell Smith, Representing Anthony Properties 2430 Highway 10 08- 30 -23 -23 -0003 Mixed Use PUD / Multiplex Movie Theater under construction • Municipal Code Section 1202.01, Subd. 1 states that full platting shall be required for all major subdivisions. • Municipal Code Section 1204.02, Subd. 5 states that a park dedication fee equal to ten percent of the market value of the land is required in conjunction with a subdivision. Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Notice of Public Hearing 4. Letter from MnDOT, dated 1119198 5. Resolution No. 564 -98 Background: The Mounds View City Council approved the development stage of the Anthony properties planned unit development on April 27, 1998. This PUD allows for the 15- screen movie theater, three office buildings and two retail or restaurant uses. The final plan for this development was approved administratively by the City on and building permits have been issued for the theater building. The parking lot has been paved and striped and access have been stubbed in to both Highway 10 and Donatelles. The access to County Road H2 has been installed completely. Because of the multiple uses and potential for multiple ownership entities, a platting of the theater site, which encompasses approximately 25 acres, is required. Plat Discussion: The proposed plat for Anthony Properties contemplates the subdivision of the 25 -acre parcel into seven lots. The approved uses for these lots are as follows: Anthony Major Subdivision Planning Case 541 -98 December 2, 1998 Page 2 Legal Use Lot 1, Block 1: 11,000 sf Office Building Lot 2, Block 1: 11,000 sf Office Building Lot 3, Block 1: Parking Lot 1, Block 2: Restaurant Lot 2, Block 2: Retail/Restaurant Lot 3, Block 2: Theater Lot 4, Block 2: 11,000 sf Office Building Lot Area 30,628 sf. (0.70 acres) 34,631 sf. (0.80 acres) 189,869 sf. (4.36 acres) 13 7, 000 sf. (3.15 acres) 111,641 sf (2.56 acres) 467,541 sf (10.73 acres) 31,889 sf (0.73 acres) The development site is bordered by Highway 10 to the northeast, County Road 112 to the south, Long Lake Road to the west, and is bisected by Edgewood Road, which will be realigned to cross Highway 10 at a near -right angle, continuing through the development to County Road H2 to the south. Analysis: According to Section 1202.01, Subdivision 1 of the City Code, full platting is required for all major subdivision requests. The applicant, Anthony Properties, is requesting approval of the preliminary plat for the proposed Anthony Properties Addition. Review of this plat is required by the City Engineer, the Director of Public Works, the City Attorney, Rice Creek Watershed District, Ramsey County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). The plat, date - stamped 11/23/98, bears the required data for preliminary plats as specified by the City Code. As with any subdivision of land within Mounds View, two issues need to be addressed. The first is easements. The plat shows easements for the wetland area, those areas to be used as NURP ponds, and other drainage and utility easements. These easements will be dedicated to the City by virtue of their inclusion on the plat. Other easements, such as the Highway 10 design theme easement and the cross access parking and driveway easement will need to be dedicated via separate documents. The City Attorney will draft these documents and have them available prior to City Council action on this request. The other issue addressed with the platting of land is the park dedication requirement. According to Section 1204.02 of the City Code, all subdividers of land are required to dedicate to the City for public purposes a portion of land, or, at the City's sole discretion, cash in an amount equal to ten percent of the land's fair market value. It has been and continues to be the City's policy of requiring a cash dedication in lieu of land. According to Ramsey County assessment records, the land has a value of $1,032,500 and thus the dedication amount applicable for this project would be $103,250. This amount will need to be paid to the City prior to the City Administrator and the Mayor signing off on the Final Plat. Anthony Major Subdivision Planning Case 541 -98 December 2, 1998 Page 3 Ramsey County Review: The Ramsey County surveyors office is reviewing the preliminary plat. While the County has not yet given its approval or authorization for Mylar copies to be made of the plat, because there are no known discrepancies to cause a delay, it is expected that approval will occur in the near future. The Planning Commission can condition its recommendation of approval on approval of Ramsey County, without which the City approval would be null and void. City Attorney: The City Attorney has reviewed the plat and will require that a Plat Opinion be performed so as to ensure all easements of record are shown on the plat and that all persons or entities having an interest in the property are represented in the signature block. While the City Attorney does not foresee any issues related to this opinion, its completion gives the City an assurance that the plat has been properly drafted. This opinion will need to be completed prior to the City Council taking action on the plat request. City Engineer; The City Engineer has reviewed the plat and has found it to be in compliance with the Mounds View subdivision requirements and the approved planned unit development documents and plans. All required utility easements have been shown. Director of Public Works: Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works, has reviewed the plat and finds that it conforms to the preliminary plat and to the City's platting requirements. Rice Creek Watershed District; The Rice Creek Watershed District has already approved the general stormwater permit for the theater project, yet a copy of the plat was sent to the watershed district for their review and comment. No comments as of yet have been received. Recommendation: There being no unresolved issues associated with this preliminary plat, other than the easement documents which have yet to be drafted and the plat opinion, which will be completed prior to the Council taking action on this item, staff finds there to be no reason for this preliminary plat to not be approved. Given that, staff recommends approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 564- 98, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat for the Anthony Properties Addition, with stipulations. James Ericson, Planning Associate ,I;IDATAICROUPSICOMDEV\DE VCASES1541- 981THEATERPC 1 A 14'1'4 - Pastriee,t`' ' COiVEV€UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIr T. 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55 i e m 612 -717 -4020 6I2 -784 -3462 - FAX Please Type or Print Information - Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant ' N " 1�'Q N-1 Address 072- Telephone l JILT) 70 a a Fax 72-° Sire 11770 75J57 Interest in Property (check appropriate box) o Owner of Property Lessee, Operator, Manager 0 Contract far Deed Owner Agreement to Purchase 4 Other (explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application, and if you are not the owner of the property, you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description Property Identiixcation # (PIN #) 4 of Acres Current Zoning 5 /1-T71/ -c ?u.0 Type of Application • Comprehensive Plan Amendment O Rezoning Major Subdivision a Minor Subdivision o Planned Unit Development (PUD) a PUD Amendment Q Conditional Use Permit • Variance © Code Appeal Q Develop Review /Site Plan O Wetland Alteration Permit Q Wetland Buller Permit a F'Ioodplain Permit • Other 5250 5250/acre; min 550 max 31500 3250 ÷ 3250 deposit* 3200 Refer to rezoning fees 5350 R -1, R -2 375; all others 5250 R-1, R -2 5100 all others 5250 5100 5125 /acre; rain 5125 max 5750 R-1, R -2 5150; ail others 5200 R-1, R -2 525; all others 5100 3200 *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices, materials and staffor consultant time spent in the review, research or preparation of materials associated with this appiication. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Arty portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty (30) days atter consideration oldie application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application, City of Mounds View, MN Develo a merit A r lication Page 2 Present Use of Property Undeveloped/Vacant 3 Single Family Dwelling fclvDuplex/Two Family Dwelling O Multi-family Dwelling Business/Commercial Establishment Q Industrial Establishment a Other (explain) Property Classification ❑ Abstract 0 Torrens Description of Proposal BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY DECLARE THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE, Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant (typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner (typed/printed) Address of Owner Phone Number of Owner Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Planning Case No. NU) v Li( —g3 FOR OkkHCE USE ONLY z i5csq _ t2 , G S Assigned to: 60 -day Limit t - 10 -144 1 20-day limit 3- 1- Fees Paid: Application: Zcc.) Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: ; Account Check # Receipt 4:'. DATA AGROL;PS\COMDEV\ FORMS1DEVAPP.FOR L'9g I m) ®),!) N N N N 1•) l0 N in in 0 10 to N N N N N B--4 2551 �% 2549 Q 2547 -� 2545 2541 2539 2537 7687 B-2 0 (r 0 (9(91 764317658 76411 7656, 763917644 76351 7630 76251 7628 76111 761':4 75951 7594 7581!7580 7565;7564 7551i 7550 75351 753411.111 75211 7520 g 750517504 7681 7851 7641 R,4 7631 7531 7521 7511 7501 0 / 0 r4 I4 N ra I 10 (0 N R--4 ""0'0 10 10 N , N AVE -4° O 0 N I NI N# N 3 zQ AVE co m' 10 N I N! N N .1 „ice } °1, fo 3 0 ° J I N 3 N 1 N N ' N ` 1 1 �� p i O Oi � 1/11 in iu9 Y E t 1 co 11fl ; 10 10 4 v7 : in 1 Iri 1 1a] 11 Nr NI N 1 N' N! Ni N1 NI N 1100E N9 '0 N O . Id7 O N N N asI 0 ' YN E 01 N. ® ' 0 5260 5256152 5250 5255 52441 5249' ..5.231.5243 52371 5214 231 PF [ 5225 1n I Ln / 5279 N N 52621 5273 1 5267 52581 5261 5250, 5255 525249 5238 524., 523 5237 = 5228 2 1 (Yj 52201 5225 52141 5219 �--� LANE '�^� F N INl �! 2: real __ .J O O n c11�1 17'(0i�1 (0. N 1 N 1 & N N 1 l� � N N —2 5297 5287 5260 I 5277 c 1 j ' Its 1 n' 1 :n 1 a>16 s7 1 1n i n n1 1®i `®I 1n1 ''1 *; +•s N Ni NI NI N! N1 N1 N N CLEARVIEW AVE 0 ! ( 10 10 l 0 N I to n1 (01us 1 �1 *1 V`. V ! ; 1 Ni N1N I N. N1 NI N 0 h' al 1 114% in in 1f1 1 PI N a -4.I . 1 .4.1 v^1 .1 N1 Ni N; 011 NI Nk Ni N 2l011 0101(0: 0;01;01 0 0 N B -3 52921 5309 52901 5299 52801 5289 52701 5279 5269 52501 5259, 52401 5249 W 524015249 52301 5239 7 5230157 3a Zoning Map Planning Case 541-98 Applicant: AP Mounds View Limited Partnership Location: 2430 Highway 10 N �lµriESryP Minnesota Department of Transportation a P �s Metropolitan Division OF Tf. Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 November 9, 1998 Rick Jopke City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Rick Jopke: SUBJECT: Carmike Site Plan Review S98 -091B Southwest Quadrant of Trunk Highway (TH) 10 and Long Lake Road Mounds View, Ramsey County C.S. 6204 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Carmike site plan. We find the plan acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments. We require the City of Mounds View apply for an access permit for the TH 10 and Edgewood Drive intersection. However, we will issue a temporary access permit at this location prior to intersection construction. Please contact Keith Van Wagner of our Permits Section at 582-1443 for additional details regarding the access permit and temporary access permit. As previously stated in our letters of May 11, 1998 and June 22, 1998, we will not allow the proposed right- in/right -out access to TH 10 without an agreement from Donatelli's. In addition, the existing access to Donatelli's must be removed and the proposed access will serve both properties. Before granting this access Mn/DOT must review this signed agreement between the property owners. Please contact me at 582 -1654 with any questions regarding this review. Sincerely, Scott Peters Senior Transportation Planner /Local Government Liaison c: Dan Soler, Ramsey County Traffic Engineer Brian Mundstock, Sunde Engineering, Inc. An equal opportunity employer ce of Public Hearin CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council on Monday, December 14, 1998, at 7 :10 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, to consider a major subdivision request by AP Mounds View Limited Partnership to subdivide the 24.9 -acre parcel located north of County Road H2, east of Long Lake Road, and southwest of Highway 10, into seven tots, in accordance with their approved Planned Unit Development. The property is legally known as: All that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, lying southwesterly of State Trunk Highway 10-62, according to the United States Goivemment Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota; and All that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, lying southwesterly of State Trunk Highway 10 -62, according to the United States Goivemment Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota; Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heard at this meeting. If you are unable to attend this meeting but wish to comment, you may submit a letter to James Ericson, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. The Letter will be forwarded to the City Council. A copy of the proposed preliminary plat is available for review at City Hall. If you have any questions regarding this meeting, please contact me at 717 -4022. James Ericson Planning Associate This notice is mailed to property owners within 350 feet of subject property. This notice published in the Bulletin Newspaper December 2, 1998. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 564 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ANTHONY PROPERTIES ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT; PLANNING CASE 541 -98 WHEREAS, AP Mounds View Limited Partnership, represented by Wendell Smith, has requested approval of a preliminary plat for the property legally known as: All that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, lying southwesterly of State Trunk Highway 10 -62, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota; and All that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 30, Range 23, lying southwesterly of State Trunk Highway 10 -62, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, a preliminary plat date - stamped 11/23/98 titled "Anthony Properties Addition" has been submitted by the applicant; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a subdivision of the 25 -acre parcel bounded by Highway 10, County Road H2 and Long Lake Road into seven lots associated with the approved planned unit development and finds that it is in conformance with all applicable sections of the Mounds View Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary plat and has found it to be in conformance with City subdivision regulations and consistent with the approved PUD plans; and, WHEREAS, The Rice Creek Watershed District has approved a drainage permit for the development and has been sent the preliminary plat for review; and, WHEREAS, Ramsey County has been provided copies of the preliminary plat and will review the plat, forwarding any comments or requested changes to the City and the applicant; and, WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has been sent a copy of the preliminary plat for its review and comment; and, WHEREAS, the City Attorney has reviewed the preliminary plat and is performing a "plat Opinion" to ensure all easements are represented and all persons or entities having an interest in the property are represented in the signature block; and, Planning Commission Resolution No. 564-98 Anthony Properties Addition Preliminary Plat December 2, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed the preliminary plat and finds it to represent all required utility easement areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat requested by AP Mounds View Limited Partnership, contingent upon the following: 1. The applicant shall execute and arrange to have recorded with Ramsey County the following easement documents, approved as to form by the City Attorney, prior to the Mayor and City Administrator signing off on the plat: a. A cross - access and parking easement document which allows use of the access points, drive aisles and parking by the theater complex and the office buildings b. An access easement which allows Donatelles patrons the use of the Theater property's access points and drive aisles. c. An easement area over the northeastern most 19 feet running parallel with Highway 10, which allows for the implementation of the Highway 10 design theme improvements, such as landscaping, lighting and sidewalks. 2. The applicant shall apply for final plat approval with the City no later than six (6) months after the date of approval of the preliminary plat; otherwise, the preliminary plat and final plat will be void unless an extension is granted by the City Council. 3. Before this plat is approved by the City, the applicant shall have paid a park dedication fee in the amount of $103,250 as required in Section 1204.02 of the Municipal Code, based upon Ramsey County assessment records. 4. Approval shall be subject to a satisfactory plat opinion, as performed by the City Attorney. Adopted this 2nd day of December, 1998. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N: IDATAIGROUPSICOMDE VIDEVCASESI54 1- 981564_98.RES PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Subject: Donatelles Variance Request Planning Case No.538 -98 Date: Meeting of December 2, 1998 Discussion: Staff is providing the Planning Commission with a copy of Resolution 561 -98, a resolution approving of a variance for a reduced front yard setback for a parking lot in a commercial district. At the Commission's last meeting on November 18, 1998, the merits of this variance and the criteria for granting variances were discussed. The public hearing for this request, however, was continued to the December 2, 1998 meeting to ensure that all affected residents had an opportunity to address the Commission prior to it taking action. Assuming that no additional information or concerns are brought to the Commission's attention via the public hearing, staff believes there to be sufficient hardship to justify the granting of this variance request. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Planning Commission Resolution 561 -98, a resolution approving a reduced front yard parking lot setback for Donatelles Supper Club. James Ericson Planning Associate N:IDATAIGROUPSIC OMDEV \DEVCASES1538- 981REPORT3.PC MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 561 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A FIVE -FOOT FRONT YARD PARKING LOT SETBACK FOR DONATELLES SUPPER CLUB, LOCATED AT 2400 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 538 -98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of George Marvin, owner of Donatelles Restaurant, represented by Wendell Smith, to allow for a reduction in the parking lot setback for the restaurant located at 2400 Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned B -3, Highway Business District and is legally described as follows: Tract A. That part of the Southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota: which lies northerly of a line run parallel with and distant 33 feet northerly of the east and west quarter line of said Section 8, southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 75 feet southwesterly of Line 1 described below and westerly of Line 3 described below; Line 1. Beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of said Section 8, distant 848.5 feet west of the center thereof, thence run northwesterly at an angle of 40 degrees 07 minutes 00 seconds from said east and west quarter line (measured from west to north) for 400 feet and there terminating; Line 3. Beginning at a point or a line run parallel with and distant 75 feet southwesterly of Line 1 described above, distant 75 feet northwesterly of its intersection with a line run parallel with and distant 33 feet northerly of the east and west quarter line of said Section 8; thence run southwesterly to a point on said 33 feet parallel line, distant 65 feet westerly of said intersection and there terminating. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan, dated 10/21/98 WHEREAS, the parking lot for which this variance is requested was constructed in 1966 or thereabouts and conformed to City Code requirements at the time; and, Planning Commission Resolution 561 -98 Donatelles Variance November 18, 1998 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of George Marvin, represented by Wendell Smith, to allow a five -foot setback for the existing parking lot located at 2400 Highway 10. Adopted this 18th day of November, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:I DATAIGROUPS ICONADEVIDEVCASES1538- 981561 -98A. RES Planning Commission Resolution 561 -98 Donatelles Variance November 18, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control, in that the Donatelles property is a small, unusual pie - shaped lot at the intersection of two major roadways through the City. Being less than an acre in area, the lot without question creates practical difficulties which the present owners did not create; and, WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that enforcement of the thirty -foot parking lot setback onto the Donatelles property after thirty years of operation in its present state would potentially deprive the property of as many as 50 parking stalls, a reduction that would effectively prohibit the restaurant from operating at that location; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the applicant is only seeking to improve the appearance and functionality of the parking lot and to lessen the extent of the nonconformity- -the applicant did not create the conditions which necessitate the approval of a variance; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that Donatelles Supper Club was one of the first businesses located in the City of Mounds View, a fixture that has continued to do business through four decades to the present. Granting a variance in this situation would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege, in that arty property owner in a similar circumstance would be given the same consideration; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship, in that the intent of the request is to lessen the extent of the existing nonconformity and to improve the overall appearance of the property; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other properties in the same zone in that the Zoning Code was not drafted with the intent to prevent a legally conforming business from improving its operation. Granting the requested variance would serve to legitimize a dimensional nonconformity which has been in existence for thirty years; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood in that granting this variance will improve the flow of traffic in and around the site and will be a benefit to public safety by closing the Highway 10 access from the Donatelles property. No property values will be diminished or impaired as a result of the Donatelles improvements. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting November 18, 1998 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds Vio g MN 55112 L Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice - Chairpe 18, 1998. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Vice - Chairperson Stevenso p.m.), Johnson, Miller, and Obert (arrived 7:0 Members Absent: Chairperson Peters. Also Present: Community Development Dirrecto rasaemle (arrived 7:08 P- Ericson, and Recorder Dave Also Absent: Council Li." Index td.n t. Planning Case" No. 561 -98, A Lot Setbac On ' f' pprovnt� ier Club Planning Associate Jim nd Consideration of Resolution ariance to Allow a Five -Foot Parking Page 1 Citizens' Reque and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda y There were 1-149,: ' � itizens j requests or comments on items Not on the Agenda. 4. tt Planning Case No. 538 -98 Property Involved: 2400 Highway 10 Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 561 -98, A Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow a Five -Foot Parking Lot Setback. Applicant: Donatelle's Supper Club Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting Ericson gave his report as follows: November 18, 1998 Page 2 The Public Hearing notices for Planning Case No. 538 -98 were not mailed out in time for residents living within 350 feet of the proposed project. Staff was recomme,ing that the public hearing for Planning Case No 538 -98 be continued to the n„xt Plarg Commission meeting. The Case will be renoticed for the requir`` minimum lead time. BrasaemIe suggested resolving all Planning Co Case 538 -98 at this sheeting and vote on the issu concurred unanimously. Ericson continued his report: Donatelle's is propo 0,, -ments to the northeast part of their parking lot that fronts Highway 10, Tharkir�1 ► y te repaved and upgraded with new curb and gutter. The access to Highwa 10 wilIii 10,11 and the southeast corner of the property will be paved. The,o h z A. he propose k will be to add ten parking stalls to the site and access to eft* . 0 ; l be shifte0r o the Theater parking lot and its right- in/right -out turn lag0 The p o 04 ork iT also give Donatelle's cosmetic improvements, new curl gutter, andfbtte / lntrol of drainage on the site The Rice Creek Watershed Di s '"t has given the pr kits blessing. The entry into Donatelle's from County Road --2 will:.b address when the road is reconstructed. Brasaemle expressed .;his o cern wit ! may,,,t., to cut throe D 0 tlatelle s Je to thei Ater ;i Highway 10 pass - through traffic that [ oo get to either location. o.atelle's, said that signage would be put in their parking lot try was for "customers only." Wen #ell` i` e enting£Anthony Properties, Inc., stated Donatelle's has access to their property (theme he Project), but that the Theater site does not have access to the } onatelle site "Fib a egal standpoint, if there was a problem, they would have the right to shut the acces pom down," Smith said. He also informed the Commission that he would not be abrto attend the next Planning Commission meeting and asked if they would conduc 'straw poll" that would indicate the voting tendencies of the Commission n regard to?;'. e Variance Request. POLL: Stevenson, Brasaemle, Johnson, Miller, and Obert all voting 5. Staff Reports/Information Items A. Discussion of City Remnant Parcel Jopke gave his report as follows: Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting November 18, 1998 Page 3 With the realignment of Edgewood Road and development of a signalized intersection at Edgewood and Highway 10 for the Theater Project, staff and Council are requesting input from the Planning Commission as to the best use of the 1.5 acre parcel that will be created as a result of this project. Alternate plans have been developed by SEH for , Council, and Commission's review. Jopke gave a visual presentation and aengthy, `= ' cussion and explanation ensued in regard to these plans. TOLD Developme. ` any Properties have expressed interest in developing the land and h °' h . sked t ;_ _ $ send out RFPs in regard to developing the site. TOLD is suggesting , algreens 0 it a :. and possible restaurant if they can combine the City owned pa with the . ' . ce 0 Videe it property which would yield approximately three .c es of d- apable lai. Properties has indicated they would develop the .. office buildir` :� .: what is being developed at the Theater site. Development of the sites would require a rezoniAan Brasaemle stated, "I personally see an off.e that I'm opposed to the Walgreens's eiti the configuration of the land is going* be, h Comprehensive was right in trying to get more process seemed too rushed he did not have a prefere Stevenson stated the ,Cit The, ate sector parcel Obe developer Edgev te Work Session. Edgewood realigntn development oft Nan, ensive Plan change. and then letthe develo, ple inv� ert stat wheth does not care of fitting 'd the Ci re, but I can't say Beds to consider what guide" it in the rs c s Po "6 t e' City. He said the Mayor fled in th ' i, ess at this point because the develop ' nt should go to the highest bidder and he devepment was "retail" or "office." -be lead in the development of the site. opke suggested sending out an RFP on the cel ha ed, appraised, and platted so that Interested ceding to t xi will know what they are dealing with Jopke, said the t Plan Sias being brought before the Council at their December evelopment should come by the end of the year. The r nstruction process should be ready to start in March 1999 with ' emnant parcel being available in the summer of 1999. Stevenson said development tpportunities have left the City because of the time delays that have occurred at theYJ'heater Project. This has hurt the City in the eyes of the development community h said. 3 stied the Commission for their input in regard to including the Highway 10 Design eme as part of the development of the "remnant parcel." It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission that any development that occurs along Highway 10, from this point forward, be required to include the design components of the Highway 10 Design Theme. B. Code Enforcement Update Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting Ericson gave his report as follows: November 18, 1998 Page 4 Staff has been making good progress in resolving the outstanding Code enforcement cases that are on the City's books. Miller noted the majority of these cases are aut *parking related. Ericson said the housing related issues are taken care of b City fusing Inspector Steve Dorgan. Brasaemle commended Ericson for h1s� *prts4 o send "thank you notes" to the people that do bring their proper ie ack to y m :> : e once they are "noticed" by the City. 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Re No reports were considered. 7. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting There being no further business before the F; Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8; Atetx Commissee- Chairperson (The Agenda Session was held in - ediately; er Session.) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Communityyeli N: 1DAT4 \USERSIBARBBIs �t ctor ournment of the Special WPDOCS COMMDEVIPLANNINGIM UTES11148- 98.SPL PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting November 18, 1998 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds Vi*,, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice - Chairpe 18, 1998. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Vice - Chairperson Stevensonf p.m.), Johnson, Miller, and Obert (arrived 7 :0 Members Absent: Chairperson Peter Also Present: Community Dever Ericson, and Recorder Dave rasaemle (arrived 7:08 Also Absent: Council Lien Koop Index to mutes Planning Case F4fwa Yn '25 No. 561 -98, A ..esolu 0 Lot Setback »won e e, Planning Associate Jim 8, Publt`L: nd Consideration of Resolution pprovin ariance to Allow a Five -Foot Parking er Club Page 1 Citizens' Reque and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda ,y+ There were nc izenst requests or comments on items Not on the Agenda. • Planning Case No. 538 -98 Property Involved: 2400 Highway 10 Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 561 -98, A Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow a Five -Foot Parking Lot Setback. Applicant: Donatelle's Supper Club Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting Ericson gave his report as follows: November 18, 1998 Page 2 The Public Hearing notices for Planning Case No. 538 -98 were not mailed out in time for residents living within 350 feet of the proposed project. Staff was recommending that the public hearing for Planning Case No 538 -98 be continued to the ext P1 fig Commission meeting. The Case will be renoticed for the requir I.,. minimum lead • time. t M Brasaemle suggested resolving all Planning Co Case 538 -98 at this meeting and vote on the issue concurred unanimously. Ericson continued his report: Donatelle's is propo of their parking lot that fronts Highway 10. Th with new curb and gutter. The access to Highwa 1 corner of the property will be paved. Theft parking stalls to the site and access to ? ' lot and its right - in/right -out turn lanes. The p cosmetic improvements, new curls. nd gutter. and The Rice Creek Watershed Dist has g n the prc Donatelle's from County R 2 will., ae address 0 wil he prop:. be shift ments to the northeast part be repaved and upgraded d and the southeast k will be to add ten o the Theater parking will also give Donatelle's 1rol of drainage on the site. al its blessing. The entry into when the road is reconstructed. Brasaemle expressed mays to cut thro to the Wetditl or property (t onatelle site. 4A: t shut the acces would not be abt d Highway 10 pass-through traffic that o get to either location. telle's, said that signage would be put in their parking lot iv. ' 42. -ntry was for "customers only." entingf>nthony Properties, Inc., stated Donatelle's has access to Project), but that the Theater site does not have access to the 'gal standpoint, if there was a problem, they would have the right orit down," Smith said. He also informed the Commission that he o attend the next Planning Commission meeting and asked if they 'straw poll" that would indicate the voting tendencies of the Commission Variance Request. would conduc Yin regard to "aye." POLL: Stevenson, Brasaemle, Johnson, Miller, and Obert all voting 5. Staff Reports/Information Items A. Discussion of City Remnant Parcel Jopke gave his report as follows: Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting November 18, 1998 Page 3 With the realignment of Edgewood Road and development of a signalized intersection at Edgewood and Highway 10 for the Theater Project, staff and Council are requesting input from the Planning Commission as to the best use of the 1.5 acre parcel that will be created as a result of this project. Alternate plans have been developed by SEH for ,s:.:tff , Council, and Commission's review. Jopke gave a visual presentation and a engthy 4is ussion and explanation ensued in regard to these plans. TOLD Developme.,.ithony Properties have expressed interest in developing the land and h. sked $£," a.:.t o send out RFPs in regard to developing the site TOLD is suggestin_n ` a greens p 4 b and possible restaurant if they can combine the City owned pa with the 4 : c �.. g.,. $ s Videe property which would yield approximately three 6 e of de,* opable la Properties has indicated they would develop the ,: an office buildin what is being developed at the Theater site. Development of the sites would require a rezoni' Brasaemle stated, "I personally see an offic that I'm opposed to the Walgreens's ei the configuration of the land is goin nsive Plan change. fitting { the Ci f re, but I can't say eds to consider what truide" it in the Comprehensive Plan, and then le e develo rs coi • t City. He said the Mayor was right in trying to get more people involved in the process at this point because the process seemed too rushed. Bert stag develop me t should go to the highest bidder and he did not have a prefere :as wheth he development was retail or office. Stevenson stated the Ctt s not ha • take he lead in the development of the site. The private sector =: care of I ` opke suggested sending out an RFP on the City: ' parce Obert\1 d ` ` = .� reel ha � p� ' ed, appraised, and platted so that Interested develope*,4aiding to flay` }'::;'-will know what they are dealing with. Jopke said the Edge 2)ti fig erlt Plan ``, as being brought before the Council at their December 'ark Session. t Cpl. development should come by the end of the year. The dgewood realiptpalkponstruction process should be ready to start in March 1999 with development of the re inant parcel being available in the summer of 1999. Stevenson said developmentopportunities have left the City because of the time delays that have occurred at the heater Project. This has hurt the City in the eyes of the development i% m comunityAe said. `< ed the Commission for their input in regard to including the Highway 10 Design eme as part of the development of the "remnant parcel." It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission that any development that occurs along Highway 10, from this point forward, be required to include the design components of the Highway 10 Design Theme. B. Code Enforcement Update Mounds View Planning Commission Special Meeting Ericson gave his report as follows: November 18, 1998 Page 4 Staff has been making good progress in resolving the outstanding Code enforcement cases that are on the City's books. Miller noted the majority of these cases are autr parking related. Ericson said the housing related issues are taken care of 4:. City HO sing Inspector Steve Dorgan. Brasaemle commended Ericson for his tss'o end "thank you notes" to the people that do bring their propertie$ ck to y e once they are "noticed" by the City. 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner? R No reports were considered. 7. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting There being no further business before th$P Cornmisstp. Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8; .'s r Ilse- Chairperson (The Agenda Session was held in ediatelye Session.) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community, rev p J tector . N:1DAT21VSERSIBARBBIs f 7 amment of the Special WPDOC SIC OM VEDE VIPLANNINGMMIINTJTES111- 18 -98. SPL 0t1 ce of Public Hearin CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission on Wednesday, December 16, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, to consider amending Chapter 1121 of the City Code regarding curb cuts on corner lots in single- family residential districts. The specific question being considered is, whether or not the City Code should be amended to allow multiple curb cuts on corner lots without a variance. As the Code is currently written, only one curb cut (driveway) is allowed, unless the property owner requests, and is granted, a variance. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heard at this meeting. If you are unable to attend this meeting but wish to comment, you may submit a letter to James Ericson, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. The letter will be forwarded, to the Planning Commission and City Council. A copy of the current City Code is available for review at City Hall. If you have any questions regarding this meeting, please contact me at 717 -4022. James Ericson Planning Associate This notice published in the Bulletin Newspaper December 2, 1998. N:I DATAIGROUPS \COMDEVISPECPROJINOTICR.PH MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 1998 7 :00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes a. November 18, 1998 5. Planning Case No. 543-98 Property Involved: 5145 Program Avenue Consideration of Resolution No. 565 -98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Alternate Site Plan (Development Review) for the Proposed Building N Development, Mounds View Business Park. Applicant: Everest Development, Ltd., Represented by Tim Nelson. 6. Special Planning Case No. SP- 064 -98 [Public Meeting] Properties Involved: Corner Lots, Single Family Residential Districts. Consideration of an Amendment to Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View City Code (Off -Street Parking Requirements) Regarding Multiple Curb Cits on Corner Lots within Single Family Residential Districts. 7. Staff Reports 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717 -4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *w * * * * * * * * ** AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of the December 2, 1998, minutes of the Planning Commission N:IDATA\GROUPSICOMDE Vt PLANCOMMWCAGENDA11998112- 16- 98.AGN REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: Staff Report by: Planning Case No.: Request: Petitioner: Location: PIN Nos.: Legal Description: December 16, 1998 James Ericson, Planning Associate 543-98 Development Review The Everest Development, Ltd. 5145 Program Avenue 08- 3-23 -41 -0012 08- 30 -23 -44 -0002 08- 3 -23 -44 -0016 08- 30 -23 -44 -0012 Lot 3, Block 3, Programmed Land First Addition. Lot 2, Block 1, Programmed Land Second Addition. That part of Outlot A, Mounds View Business Park lying east of a line beginning at a point on the south line of said Outlot A, said point being South 89 degrees 19 minutes 21 seconds East, assumed bearing, 409.00 feet from the southwest corner of said Outlot A; thence North 31 degrees 43 minutes 48 seconds East 19.26 feet to the north line of said Outlot A and said line there terminating. That part of the South five acres of Lot 2, Block 2, Pinecrest Addition, lying West of the easterly 80 feet of said Lot and lying East of Mounds View Business Park East Addition. Zoning/Land Use: Office - Warehouse PUD / undeveloped lot Applicable Regulations: Development Review: Section 1006.06 requires that all commercial and industrial development within the City be subject to review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. Minimum Lot Size: Section 1104.02, Subd. 2 establishes the minimum lot size in an the Industrial Zone as one acre (43,560 square feet.) Summary: The applicant, Everest Development, is requesting approval of an alternate site plan for the Building N site located within the Mounds View Business Park, which was originally approved by the City Council in 1994. The applicant requests that either plan (the 1996 version or the plan contemplated now) be permitted to allow greater flexibility in marketing the building to prospective tenants or owners. The new proposal shows a building of a reduced size of 69,582 square feet, which is 33 percent smaller than the originally approved 102,950 square foot building. Building N Site Plan Planning Case 543 -98 December 16, 1998 Page 2 The appearance of the single - story, brick -faced office /flex building will match that of the Liberty Check building. The building would accommodate user needs for office, laboratory, production, high -tech assembly or storage uses. It is anticipated that office uses will occupy 50 to 75 percent of the building. Discussion: Dimensional Requirements: Required Provided Met? Lot Area: 1 acre 6.89 acres Yes Building Height < 45 feet 19 feet Yes Building Setbacks ® Front (Program Avenue): 40 feet 80 feet Yes • Side 20 feet 55 feet Yes ® Rear: 40 feet 50 feet Yes Parking Lot Setbacks ® Front (Program Avenue): 40 feet 10 feet Yes • Side: 5 feet 20 feet Yes ® Rear: 5 feet 5 feet Yes The parking lot for this building is for the most part set back from Program Avenue by a minimum of ten feet, with the except for an area where the dedicated right-of-way jogs into the property. While the front yard parking lot setback for a building of this type would normally be 40 feet, because this is within an approved PUD and is zoned accordingly, the setbacks can deviate from the norm. The 1994 - approved plans indicated the same front setback. Drainage Considerations: There is currently a Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) permit in force for the previously approved Building N development. Staff has forwarded a revised set of plans to the district office for their review. It is possible that the existing permit will need to be amended or a new permit will need to be obtained. Staff had not yet received word from RCWD as to which if either will be required. The plans have also been sent to the City Engineer for their review. Parking: The site plans show a total of 344 parking stalls being provided for the building at a ratio of one space per 181 square feet of usable space . According to the parking ratios listed in Chapter 1121 of the City Code, office uses require 3 spaces plus 1 per 175 square feet of floor area and while warehouse uses require 8 spaces plus 1 per 500 square feet of floor area. The parking provided, according to these requirements, will be adequate to serve the building as long as office uses do not exceed 75 percent of the usable floor area of the building (the balance used as warehouse, storage or manufacturing.) Landscaping: The City Forester, Rick Wriskey, reviewed and approved the original landscape Building N Site Plan Planning Case 543 -98 December 16, 1998 Page 3 plans. Even though the current landscape plan indicates all of the same species and in the same general ratios and even exceeds the previous plan by an additional five plantings, staff has asked the City Forester to review the revised landscape plan in the event that any of the species have been recently found to be susceptible to disease or any other problems. Public Safety: The access and drive aisles are in conformance with Fire Department requirements and standards. There are three entrances from Program Avenue to the site, two of which are 30 feet wide and are for truck traffic and the third, which would be for automobile traffic only, is 25 feet wide. Because of the angle loading bays at the rear of the building, truck traffic will enter only from the north driveway and exit only from the south driveway. There is 45 feet of impervious surface at the rear of the building to sufficiently accommodate the turning and maneuvering of the trucks. Utilities: The building will tie into existing watermains, one under Program Avenue, the other just north of the building creating a looped water source for better circulation and pressure. The sanitary sewer will tie in to the existing service also under Program Avenue. The Fire Marshall has been sent a copy of the utility plan to verify the location and number of the fire hydrants available for the site and building. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 565 -98, a resolution recommending approval of an alternate site plan for development of the 6.89 -acre Building N site, Mounds View Business Park, as requested by Everest Group. James Ericson, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plans, date - stamped 11/25/98 4. Resolution 565 -98 N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEV\DE VCASES1543- 981REPORT.PC 1 11/24/98 18:54 FAX 812 784 3482 s Applicant Info Name of Applicant Everest Development, Ltd. Telephone 651/636 -5500 CITY OF xV CO DEVELOP eat ” DE? DEVELO 1 $ > AP CAL. 2401 i-Lghway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 612417 -4020 612 -784 -3462 -FAX 2 002/0 Pleas Type or Print Infer tlo. Caopieta Bath sides ofTkia Forces Address. 2 6 6.5 Long Lake E.oad. 12-0 __. .. Fax ..... }C s e171f'I. e , T 1 -5-5T1 -3 '•6.51:/636 ®0183 ( ) -2 .Et Cotatonit for Deed Own= CI Lessee, .......... a A X O. (=plain) Affi11_ate__of property own„ „__ - „m Tnae,rm.e.n_ -a Appli t, stint provide evidence vimtareat is property si the property, you must provide a letter of pesvession thee tie owner property owner a lase sib +; *wit to be Property Address or General Location. Legal Daciplxaa Property E eup(PIN#) # of Act= Type of Appticatian a a a a a a c of apptiifon, and d'yo i are not the miner (tithe consent tm the firing a7 thin - The 5XXXX Prozram Ave,..n.ue_ Lee�nattached F,xhfl ft A 7. 6.89 Acres - -....- P u D (Planned Unit Development) Compredicnsive Plan Amendment Rezoning Subdivision Maier Bauer Subdivisicia Planned Unit D (TUD) NM Amendment Conditional Use Pernik Variance . Code Appeal Werlamei Floodplain Other S'250 S2501 a= xnin 1150 aunt SI500 S2S0 -'-S250 5200 Re5er r. ristotting Sees 350 .R.-!.. R -2 375: all others 5250 R71. R -Z 5100 ail attics 5250 S100 S12S/aer, min 5125 max 5750 R -1. R -2 5150; all others 57.00 R -2 S25; ail others 5100 5200 'Deposits paid to cover ad costs of pgablic notices. marerials and smear conentant tune mica in the rrifiew, or of spp ° bz: responsible frra. incurred coats in excess of the i al .; arnmed. Any Iffilt spent or =hexed shall bo the applicant um, .." dorry PO) days after 1i/24t98 i8:54 FAX 612 784 3462 Gtr of Mounds View, MN a D CITY OF 1Y Terreas of Alternate site plan a ro • val for dev e to Ri 003100 • ll._� �_ . 7 square foot . sio� a -story office flex building and ass�aesi nd i improvements. A.roval is r -. to .e p revious Y ap office flex buildin p BY MY (OUR) SIGNATURE ON roved 97,463 office /wa :i:4 KNOWLEDGE. IHE INFORMATION 5 Mallon ofAtv s- Ni Owner Owner ( ciThawr Number of Own:r De= Salaniael Dee of Acceptatce CaMe NO- Tam: N: TAB r Iin Y THAT-TO IS TRUE AND ACCURATE Everest D; *elopment, . Ltd. f � Mich I1 vestments •Raseville, ..MN "551.I3- 651/636 -5500 OF MT Vice President FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Umi& 120-day tint kiLr s. AD s. of '7 ,19 5317 PF CO N N A 04 t) N N ra N n to N 0 b 4, N N N 5275 8 -3 92 90 8 70 5267 5263 PUP 5251 7 I0 0 N 5230 60 5 W000At E DR 2 10 0 5/00 EDGEWOOD JR. HIGH SCHOOL C - CO- • -RD f LMmoref , wr1 }�,..� -�.... ....__,__ TOWNS EDGE TERRACE -'• MOBILE HOME PARK infoNammutgin: Zoning Map Planning Case 543 -98 Applicant: Everest Building, Ltd. Location: 5145 Program Avenue 8 -3 L�4 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 565 -98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ALTERNATE SITE PLAN (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUILDING N SITE, MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK, 5145 PROGRAM DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. 543 -9S WHEREAS, Everest Group, represented by Tim Nelson, has requested City approval of an alternate site plan for the development of the Building N site, legally described as follows: Lot 3, Block 3, Programmed Land First Addition; and, Lot 2, Block 1, Programmed Land Second Addition; and, That part of Outlot A, Mounds View Business Park lying east of a line beginning at a point on the south line of said Outlot A, said point being South 89 degrees 19 minutes 21 seconds East, assumed bearing, 409.00 feet from the southwest corner of said Outlot A; thence North 31 degrees 43 minutes 48 seconds East 19.26 feet to the north line of said Outlot A and said line there terminating; and, That part of the South five acres of Lot 2, Block 2, Pinecrest Addition, lying West of the easterly 80 feet of said Lot and lying East of Mounds View Business Park East Addition. WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application, dated 12/2/98 2. Zoning and Location Map 3. Site Plans, date - stamped 11/25/98 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plans date - stamped 11/25/98 conform to the requirements of Chapter 1120, Planned Unit Developments District; and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has been sent the site plans in order to review the proposed utility and drainage plans and will provide comments prior to City Council review of this request; and, WHEREAS, the Rice Creek Watershed District has been sent the site plans in order to review the proposed drainage plans and will provide comments prior to City Council review of this request, and, Planning Commission Resolution 565 -98 Building N Alternative Plans December 16, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Forester has been sent the site plans in order to review the proposed planting schedule and will provide comments prior to City Council review of this request; and, WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal has been sent the site plans in order to review the proposed placement of fire hydrants and will provide comments prior to City Council review of this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of an alternative site plan for the Building N development, Mounds View Business Park, to allow for a 69,582 square -foot office /flex building as shown on the site plans dated 11/25/98, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The site plans shall be revised in the event any changes are suggested by the City Engineer, the City Forester, the Fire Marshal or Rice Creek Watershed District prior to City Council review. 2. There shall be no more than a 75 percent office coverage within this development so as to not exceed the parking stalls provided. The City shall be furnished documentation from the property owners or managers to verifying this limitation as the building becomes leased. Before any building permits are issued for this development, the applicant shall arrange to file the final plat with Ramsey County and arrange to pay the required park dedication fee, as stipulated in Resolution 5168, adopted October 27, 1997. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 16th day of December, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDE V\DE VCASES154 3 - 981565- 98PC.RES PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2401 Highway 10, 1. Call to Order Regular Meeting December 2, 1998 Moundsicw City Hall 1� f nds. Jew, MN 55112 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peierso— 7:00 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, CommissioneI< YBrasa ' Stevenson. Members Absent: Commissioner Johnson (e. Also Present: Community Development trector,4 `ck Jop and Recorder Stacy Caton. Also Absent: Council Liaison Kvmeiners:. ling Associate Jim Ericson, Planning Case Recommend) Ap ro Residentiall 6g KenndIA Page Conside tits jf Resolution No. 562 -98, a Resolution 2 c f::4a Conditional Use Permit Request to Allow for a mmy Schmitt l�FC Ai £S 3 n` _ca Plan rig Case No 539-9 tsideration of Resolution No 563 -98, a Resolution Deng a Variance Request to Allow a Zero -Foot Driveway Setback. Blacktop Paving of mil, Representing T f l Jarvis, Property Owner. fit C ise 1 -98, Consideration of Resolution No 564 -98, a Resolution Rec�sdx pproval of a Preliminary Plat to Subdivide a 25 -acre parcel into Sev ts. :=Anthony Properties, Represented by Wendell Smith. Planning Case No. 538 -98, Consideration of Resolution No. 561 -98, a Resolution Approving a Variance Request to Allow for a reduced Front Yard setback for a Parking Lot in a Commercial District - Donatelies, represented by Wendell Smith. 4 6 Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 2, 1998 Page 2 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Chairperson Peterson opened the floor for requests and comments on items not on,;.t�-agenda. No requests or comments were considered, and the floor was was_keturned:,ito ;kommission. 4. Approval of Minutes A. November 4, 1998 Motion/Second: iBrasaemle/Miller to approve the Plannir Minutes of November 4, 1998. Ayes -4 Nays -0 The motion carried. 5. Planning Case No. 542 -98 Property Involved: 2206 Hillvieroad Consideration of Resolutiort:&io 562 -98 a{ eotu Use Permit 1 nest to AU IIa a Residenet sion Regular Meeting Applicant %- a y, Sc ecommending Approval of a Conditional ennel Use. Associakkt. ' ricson gave e eport as follows: kY The plicant, Tammy Sc rn tt, was applying for a conditional use permit for a residential dog ken 1, a Code requirejul nt for property owners with three or four dogs. One of the licensing wrements is that th. `property owner shall obtain signatures of approval from more than 50 `ofthe sid reents within 500 feet of the property proposing the kennel. The applicant was s(t�ng those properties within 500 feet along with a corresponding list of property owritaxpayers. Of the 62 properties which fell into this category, 44 signatures were gathered in support of the application. Staff had inquired with the Police Department regarding any call or complaints associated with dogs at Ms. Schmitt's home; there were none. Ms. Schmitt currently owns two dogs and wishes to add one more to her household. The backyard to Ms. Schmitt's home is being completely fenced in to contain the dogs. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 2, 1998 Page 3 Staff was recommending approval of Resolution 562 -98, a resolution recommending approval of a condition use permit for a dog kennel for Tammy Schmitt, located at 2206 Hillview Road, with stipulations as stated in the staff report dated December 2, 1998. Brasaemle asked for the height of the fence that was being installed in bi Tammy Schmitt, 2206 Hillview Road, told the Commiss. feet high. e fence„ INA ately four:;'! Motion/Second: Stevenson/Obert to approve Resolutio Approval of a conditional Use Permit Request to Allow fa stipulations as stated in the December 2, 1998, staff repo: A Resolution Recd €t 'eending tial Dog Kennel Use, with Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 The motion carried. R. � t: Associate Ericson told Ms. Schmitt she would need�t atten ae December 28, 1998, City ; 4* aNe� Council Meeting for final a final Tulin ? her a lication TN 6. Planning Propert Considerati k Zero -Foot Driveway tback Applicant: Blapktop P tttg ,,ofMiniieso a, Representing Ted Jarvis, Property Owner !.?.No. 539 7,, 2223' solution a Resolution Denying a Variance Request to Allow a The applicant and the con, %Or were not present. ata� Stib' Ericson gaveAe staff report as follows; • .ltnmer, Blael p Paving of Minnesota installed a twelve -foot expansion to Mr, Jarvis' aV dri }r „�� A ut having obtained the proper building permit. The City's Code requirement sped1at riveways shall maintain at least a one -foot setback from a property line. Staff, on routine inspections in this neighborhood, observed a fresh driveway expansion clearly too close to the property line, at which time it was discovered that no permit had been obtained for the work that Mr. Jarvis had contracted for, Repeated attempts to resolve the encroachment issue have been unsuccessful. On November I0, 1998, a development application was received from Mr. Jarvis. • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 2, 1998 Page 4 After reviewing the criteria for this type of variance, staff determined there was no hardship to justify approving a variance for this condition. Staff was recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution N&56379. a resolution denying the variance request of Blacktop Paving of Minnesotto allowf?;,F a oot setback for a driveway and requiring said contractor to remove one foot i a` =nth o�rc agent and restore the area with sod, weather permitting. Chairperson Peterson opened the public hearing. No comments were considered from the public, and the 3 : a , eturned to the Commission. Stevenson expressed his concern that the contractor wa'licens should have been aware of permit and code requirement Ericson contractor had told staff it was an oversight on their part. Brasaeml:e id tet* as no 04 ton as to where the o property line was because there is an existin.:etlt=' it of Mounds View and Motion/Second: Brasaemle /Obert to ap eve resolution N � 8, a Resolution Denying a Variance Request to Allow a Zero -F:o tiDrivew,i, : °'Setback, 1223 Hillview Road. 7. Planning Cots' n Property In o red: ghway ICI Consideration of Resolution '€ t564 -98 a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Preliminary Plat to";ubdivide a 25- ACTe,:arcel Into Seven Lots. ant: Anthony Properties, Represented by Wendell Smith Assa ate ricson gave the staff report as follows: The Mounds View City Council approved the development stage of the Anthony Properties Planned Unit Development (PUD) on April 27, 1998. This PUD allows for the l5- screen movie theater, three office buildings and two retail or restaurant uses. The final plan for this development was approved administratively by the City and Building permits have been issued for Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 2, 1998 Page 5 the theater building only. The parking lot has been paved and striped and access points have been stubbed into both Highway 10 and Donatelles, The access to County Road H2 has been installed completely. Because of the multiple uses and potential for multiple ownership entiti, site, which encompasses approximately 25 acres, is required0ogo Per City Code, copies of the plat have been sent to Rani•. ; -y County, teCity Engineer, the Director of Public Works, and the Rice Cr Waters ed District under these organization's various disciplines. The City 0,4 so requires a park a on either in land or a cash payment in lieu of land. Anthony ': 01 i 1. has indicated they will pay the required ten percent of the property's $1,032,500 value, %ng of the theater e A public hearing has been scheduled for the City Council d tiDecember 14, 1998. Staff was recommending approval of Plannin ommisstat elution No. 564 -98, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval'f the p min •fcr the Anthony Properties Addition, with stipulations as stated in thekaffrepOKdatedt 44iiiSer 2, 1998. Miller suggested including in the Resolution that the resolution was forwarded to the Council before the adoption of the minute Ericson ' dcated he Would add the "standard" clause to the resolution. r i 7 .;•; r- Brasaemle } wetlan the parkin glo separate Ericson confirmed B emle's s p was included with the theater acreage, and that the reason aters was because of the public right -of -way issue. mo Stevenson d rie the letteinto the record Stevenson asked if there *td''been talk early on in the project of blacktopping the walking path all thew s..ay from Long Labe ?Road to County Road H2 in lieu of some of the park dedication fee. *-other Commissioners said the discussion did not take place. Ericson concurred. f Otto Second: Miller /Obert to approve Resolution No. 564 -98, a Resolution Recommending ApioyAlsw,a 'reliminary Plat to Subdivide a 25 -acre Parcel into Seven Lots with stipulation as stated in the staff report dated December 2, 1998. Wendell Smith's written comments into the record. Ericson read Ayes -5 Nays -0 The motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 8. Planning Case No 538 -98 Property Involved: 2400 Highway 10, Donateiles Supper Clul Consideration of Resolution No. 651-98, a Resolution Appr4' "' for a reduced Front Yard setback for a Parking Lot in a 13 Applicant: Donateiles, Represented by Jeff Weyek The applicant was present. Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: At the Commission's last two meetings in Novernbrt granting variances were discussed. The pubiic. harrin to the December 2, 1998, meeting to ensurelthat all address the Commission prior to it taking{ coon. he'rerts of thr December 2, 1998 Page 6 It 2nce and the criteria for reques owever, was continued tttshad an opportunity to . Staff was recommending the appro6f Plane resolution approving a reduced f.' yard p «r g Comm ion Resolution No. 561 -98, a g lot s.°. ck for Donatelles Supper Club. Motion/Seedrik Brasaem Variance equest to A11owfor District. o. Chairperson Peterso oncd the pu Pm the public, and the floor was returned to the Commission. No comments were cons+ hearing. oI tion No. 561 -98, a Resolution Approving a and Setback for a Parking Lot in a Commercial Peton asked if there wu1d be a sidewalk installed on the northwest side of the building that wi d accommodate pestrian access. Weyek said there would be no sidewalk but there would andscaping. The motion carried. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 9. Staff Reports/Information Items Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 2, 1998 Page 7 A. Setting of a Public Hearing for Wednesday, December 16, 1998, at 7 :00 p.m., at the Mounds View City hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112, to consider amending Chapter 1121 of the City Code regarding curb cuts on corneil is in single- family residential districts. Ericson told the Commission the public hearing was being ,,l :.drespo Y to the City Council of the Planning Commission's denial o s variance r+ there is a public safety issue, which is his having to back it of his d The Council saw merits in both sides of the argument a bled Council is directing the Planning Commission to discuss? corner lots. Jopke added that the second issue that shoal` of work, as Mr. Tobias argued, is maintenance work as o; replacement work. Obert said the original asphalt, base and even some tr is had be moved in order to do the work that Mr. Tobias had contracted for 'Was (i p i that tir work done at the Tobias residence was new construction. Obert ex r ed hi, n _ c ` a Ting a code just to accommodate one variance request would set a very dangeroAp'ecedent for the future of the City; more dangerous than granting the variance A Brasaernlesuggested that the Commission revisit the Code; however, the me4iiihat should be sentto the Council is that this variance is a separate issue and should not be tito the o0.corne oft 'S reconsideration of the Code. Jopke said it is important to understand the Code4make ire that the reasons for the Code are still valid and need d. Obert asked ffto make e t a the Council Liaison is present at the Planning o t 4zon meetto 'O .'December 16`, 1998. Ericson stated he would include comments from t e: y Attorii . ii i� e,stat report that is prepared for the public hearing. Peterson suggested nc ,ding the a o le that was used when the code was implemented in 1979. Tobias' appeal ,, Tobias fee ,to 0¢. eway i rk . ng tr ic. action on t . e e.' -, e Y' of allowing two ' �;�; tS for ssed is whether or not this type IN Ile construction or Jopke that..t toic the Commissi n he Truth -In- Taxation meeting had been held the previous Monday evening. The rmajb pp maxi oints that carne out of the meeting are that the City will adopt the rium levy increase of4.3'percent. The franchise fee will be raised from 2.5 percent to 3 p 'nt. The YMCA is till under consideration for the management of the Community Center as , s the Park and, 0, Of ecreation Department facilities. The City is also considering "contracting • out' o building ins} ction services. Hiring of a new CSO is being considered. This person would b t.tea ponsible for traffic control and code enforcement. Obert asked if the projected budget shortfall was based on the City operating the Parks and Recreation Department or the YMCA operating the Parks and Recreation Department. Jopke said the projection was based on the YIVICA running the Parks and Recreation Department. Jopke told the Commission MnDOT has indicated that when Highway 10, 610, and 118 are Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 2, 1998 Page 8 complete they will be prepared to turn the facilities back to the County this will happen in July of 1999. Jopke told the Commission that televising of the Planning Commission sometime early in the new year. . MnDOT has indicated nn otings .a 'l(begin 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Repo ks No reports were considered from the Planning CommissiO =z4„ 11, Adjournment to Agenda Meeting There being no further business before the Mounds Vie Ran Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:11 p.m. (The meeting immediately, Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke ,£ Communit relo ment ssion, Chairperson • geed j. ssion.)