Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-1997 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting July 16, 1997 Mounds View City Hall 2410 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:03 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Commissioners Obert, Miller, Brasaemle, Stevenson, and Chair Peterson. Members absent: Commissioners Brooks and Johnston had excused absences. Also Present: Community Development Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson, • Council Liaison Koopmeiners, Recorder David Hix. 3. Citizen Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizens requests or comments from the floor. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 487-97, Development Review for 16 Townhomes & 2 Renovation of Red Oak Apartments, 2625 Highway 10, Silver Lake Commons. - . 0. I 1 4 0 • . _ • ♦ • ..• •. . .. Unit, Craig and Diane Weinmann, 2209 Bronson Drive. Planning Case No. 491-97, Code Interpretation; allowance for public estate 9 auctions at single family residences, Hilda Braley, 2337 Knoll Drive. Director Sheldon had two introductions to make to the Commission prior to proceeding with the meeting. Dave Hix was introduced as the new Recorder for the Planning Commission Meetings, and Joe Duetsch was introduced as the temporary Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Officer for the summer season. • 1 • Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 1997 Regular Meeting 4. Planning Case No. 487-97 2625 Highway 10; Silver Lake Commons Applicant: MSP Real Estate Development review for 16 Townhomes &Renovation of Red Oak Apartments. Director Sheldon noted that Case No. 487-97, Silver Lake Commons, had some related issues that are not part of the Planning Commission's Agenda this evening. As part of the project site there is a lot which is owned by the City and the applicants have requested to purchase that lot. Director Sheldon noted the City Council, acting as the Ecomonic Development Authority, will have to decide whether or not to sell the land. Director Sheldon explained to the Commission that a second issue related to the project was how the project is being financed. MSP, the developer, has requested TIF money, affordable housing tax credits, and funds through the Hollman Program, which is administered by the Minneapolis Housing Authority. How the project is being financed is not an issue before the Planning Commission. • Director Sheldon listed the main focus of the Planning Commission's review as being the layout of the site, parking, landscaping, the amount of open space, setbacks, and building heights. The floor was turned over to Planning Associate Ericson. Ericson briefly reviewed the request informing the public and the Commission that the applicant is requesting an approval of a development review and a parking ratio variance for the proposed Silver Lake Commons development, located at 2625-2665 Highway 10. A total of 16 new two-level rental townhomes would be built along with an extensive rehabilitation of the existing 40 unit Red Oak Apartments. Ericson stated that the applicant has submitted updated grading, site, landscape, and drainage plans as requested by the Commission at the Planning meeting held on June 18, 1997. The Commission was given a visual presentation of the new site plan. Ericson reviewed all of the changes on the resubmittal. Ericson stated that the other issue that was raised at the June meeting was the parking that the developer had planned needed to be changed. The original plan called for 86 parking spaces which is well below the City's requirements. The City Code requires 2.5 spaces per living unit with one space in covered parking and 1.5 spaces in surface parking. What the applicant is requesting is that the parking ratio be lowered down to 1.15 surface . stalls per unit and the standard one covered garage stall per unit. There is room on the 2 • Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 1997 Regular Meeting site to build the required number of stalls if future parking is required. The variance request is for the provision of 65 surface stalls and 19 stalls set aside for proof of parking. Ericson explained that the utilities for the site are existing and that the details for the new utilities would be reviewed upon approval of the development plan of the project. Ericson stated that the staff is recommending approval of Resolution 514-97 which would recommend approval of the deveopment plan to City Council and Resolution 513-97 which would approve the parking variance. Approval of both Resolutions is needed for the project to go forward. The floor was turned over to the applicant, MSP Real Estate, and its representatives. Milo Pinkerton, President of MSP Real Estate, gave a short history of MSP. MSP has developed real estate within the City of Mounds View in the past and considers itself a member of the community. Pinkerton stated that his company's concerns for this particular project were completing a major renovation to the Red Oak Apartments, reducing the density of the proposed townhouse development, offering play areas within the townhouse property, fencing off of the townhouse apartment complex from the existing neighborhood and maintaining a well managed rental facility. • Jeff nugget, Director of Finance for MSP Real Estate, reiterated Pinkerton's statements and added that not only was there going to be outside play areas but that there was an indoor community center/recreation center that was under development for the proposed buildings. The management of the buildings would no longer be done by a resident from within one of the apartment buildings. It was stated that a professional management company, DanZeisen Properties, has been hired to run the facility. Peter Pfister, Project Architect, gave further details about the proposed project including parking, fencing, garage details and landscaping. The floor was returned to the Commission for questions and comments. Commissioner Miller asked if mail boxes and trash facilities had been addressed. Pfister answered Miller by locating the existing and new mail box locations and also locating the trash and recycling facilities on the proposed plan. Commissioner Stevenson expressed concerns in regards to snow removal and the picking up of children by the school buses. He also stated that the City's plan for the Highway 10 corridor was to have a bike path located next to the proposed site and there was some concern that the development would interfere with this bike path. • 3 • Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 1997 Regular Meeting Commissioner Stevenson stated that the development would not encroach into the 225' right-of-way for Highway 10. Chair Peterson opened the floor to questions from the audience. L.W. Stigney, 7841 Eastwood, stated that he represents 30 households that are opposed to the proposed development. He stated that he had read the Focus 2000 Report and he didn't recall any plan that called for low-income housing to be built along the Highway 10 corridor. He stated that the codes that are in place should not be watered down and if the nuisance ordinances that are on the books were enforced that the problems that have been experienced at the Red Oak apartments could be solved. Commissioner Stevens asked how many low-income housing units the proposed project would add in Mounds View. Pinkerton stated that there are 40 one and two bedroom units. They expect that many of the existing tenants are planning to stay so the addition would amount to 16 townhomes. MSP stated that a family of five or six earning up to $42,000 a year would meet the income limits for subsidy programs such as Section 8. Within the project there are ten • units that qualify as Hollman units: five in the apartment complex and five in the townhouse units. The applicants for these ten units will go through a screening process to ensure the quality of the renters. Commissioner Miller asked what would happen to the existing residents during the renovation of the Red Oak Apartments. Pinkerton answered by saying the renovation would be done in stages so the existing residents could be moved into vacant apartments while their apartments were being renovated. Chair Peterson reintroduced the parking variance for discussion. He stated that MSP is asking for 19 fewer spaces than is allowed by City Code. The floor was opened for discussion of this variance request. Commissioner Brasaemle stated that he was in favor of the variance because it increased the amount of green area in the project. Commissioner Miller asked if the Planning Commission was acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on this variance, and if so, that that should be included in the resolution. • 4 • Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 1997 Regular Meeting Director Sheldon stated that the statement could be inserted into the resolution. Alexander Amundsen, 7810 Eastwood, stated that the whole project should be scratched because there are too many buildings in the proposed development. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Stevenson to approve Resolution 513-97, "Resolution to approve the variance on parking ratios for Silver Lake Commons, Planning case 487-97", as amended and acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Chair Peterson opened the floor for discussion of the motion. Commissioner Obert asked who makes the call when additional parking is required in a case were a variance has been allowed in the parking requirements. Director Sheldon responded by saying it would depend on whether an agreement between staff and the property owner could be reached at a staff level, and if an agreement could not be reached the issue would be forwarded to the Council. Commissioner Obert stated that in the past the owner usually claims lack of money as a • reason for not adhering to an order to increase the parking space requirement. Director Sheldon stated that in this particular case there is a condition on the site plan that says, "The property owner is obligated to build up to an additional 19 parking spaces which would meet the parking ratios required by the zoning code and deemed necessary by the City based on future parking patterns 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 three months with consideration for weather conditions." This is an enforcement issue and if worse comes to worse going to court would be the alternative. Dorothy Bodrich, 5100 Sunnyside Road, stated that her opinion was that the development would be a big improvement and she was in favor of the development. Chair Peterson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried: 4 ayes, 1 nay (Obert) Commissioner Obert stated his reason for dissent as being his opposition of the total project and to vote in favor of the variance or planning did not make sense. Obert said he felt the City staff has been pushed and cornered into a project that is bad for the City. i5 • Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 1997 Regular Meeting Chair Peterson opened the floor for discussion on Resolution 514-97, the Silver Lake Commons Development Review. L.W. Stigney stated his agreement with Commissioner Obert's opposition to the proposed development. Stigney suggested that the City should slow down, step back and see what other development options are available for the site. Commissioner Obert said that putting subsidized housing on the Highway 10 corridor, the City's commercial show case, doesn't match with his vision of how Highway 10 should be developed. Mike Coon, 7851 Eastwood, stated that he would like to see a walk-in medical clinic built on the site. He also stated his opposition to low-income housing. Pinkerton stated that he thought the City had done a good job in researching the development. There was a professional consulting firm hired by the City to give its recommendation on how best to use the property and multiple- family housing is the recommendation that came back from the consulting firm. Pinkerton also stated that the property is zoned R-3 and R-4. The zoning would allow 37 units and Pinkerton • reminded the Commission that the development is for only 16 units. Director Sheldon briefly reviewed for the Commission and public the study that was done by SRF Consultants and the Towle Marketing Group. The Highway 10 Area Study stated that multifamily residential was the best use for the property. Mike Coon asked how much the property was marketed for before the study was done. Director Sheldon responded that she would get the information from the Economic Development Director and would let him know. Chair Peterson stated that in his opinion the City was not forced into this project. In the early'90s it was determined by the City that the property would remain R-3 because of the neighborhood opposition to any commercial business being developed in the area. Commissioner Miller stated that the owner of the property is responsible for the decision as how to develop the property. She added that she liked the idea that MSP has hired a professional management company to manage the rental aspect of the proposed Silver Lake Commons project. Commissioner Brasaemle stated that the rationale for approval or denial of the project is 6 • Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 1997 Regular Meeting whether or not it fits the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning, and all of the criteria of the City Codes. Commissioner Obert stated that even though the City has done its job well and the developer has met all of the obligations that have been asked of them, the Commission has an obligation to look at all aspects of the project including the political side of the case. Chair Peterson stated that the Commission's responsibility was to look at this specific request from a specific owner. The issue of how the property fits into the bigger picture has already been addressed through the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning. Pam Stokes, 5092 Longview Drive, asked if it was possible to develop the land as a buffer to Highway 10, i.e., as a green area or an open space. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Miller to approve Resolution No. 514-97, "Resolution to approve the development review for the Silver Lake Commons Project, MSP Real Estate, 2625-2665 Highway 10, Case No. 487-97", as amended. Chair Peterson asked for a vote on the motion. • Motion carried: 4 ayes, 1 nay(Obert) Director Sheldon explained to the Commission and the public that the project would be passed on to the City Council for approval or denial at the City Council Meeting scheduled for July 28, 1997. Chair Peterson asked for a 10 minute recess. Chair Peterson reconvened the meeting. 5. Planning Case No. 494-97 2209 Bronson Drive Applicant: Craig and Diane Weinmann Request for a Variance in Front Setback for Air Conditioning Unit. The applicants, Craig and Diane Weinmann, were present. • Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 1997 Regular Meeting Planning Associate Ericson briefly reviewed the request for the Planning Commission. The applicants are requesting a variance to locate an air conditioning unit in the front of their home located a 2209 Bronson Drive. The line running to the furnace is leaking and needs to be replaced. At the time the air conditioning was installed, the basement was finished and converted into living space. The existing line is in the ceiling which is sheetrocked and textured, effectively preventing its removal. Putting the air conditioner in the front would permit easy access to an unfinished part of the basement in order to install a new line to where the furnace is located. The applicants propose to landscape around the unit with shrubs and other plantings to screen it from public view. Ericson stated that the staff was recommending approval of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 512-97, granting approval of a variance to allow for the location of an air conditioning unit in the front yard of 2209 Bronson Drive, subject to stipulations. Ericson stated that the condition of approval would be maintaining the landscaping around the unit so that it was not visible from the street. This stipulation is guaranteed by the Weinmanns providing a $100 check to guarantee that the screening is adequate and appropriate. • All Commission Members questioned the type of landscaping that would be used and stated that the foliage selected be such that it would hide the air conditioning unit during all seasons of the year. The Commission recommended junipers or some type of evergreen as a solution to this problem. The Weinmanns stated that they would install shrubs that would conform to whatever the Commission recommended as a step to get approval of the variance. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to approve Resolution 512-97, "Resolution Recommending •. Weinmann, 2209 Bronson Drive, Mounds View Planning Case No. 494-97", as amended. Chair Peterson asked for a vote on the open motion. Motion carried: 5 ayes, 0 nays. 6. Planning Case No. 491-97 2337 Knoll Drive • 8 • Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 1997 Regular Meeting Applicant: Hilda Braley Code Interpretation; allowance for public estate auctions at single family residences. Director Sheldon briefly reviewed the July 11, 1997 Memo sent to all Planning Commissioners stating that a request had been received from Schultz Auctioneers on behalf of Hilda Braley and the Braley family to conduct an estate auction at 2337 Knoll Drive. Staff was seeking guidance from the Planning Commission on a code interpretation whether or not estate auctions are allowed in residential neighborhoods. Director Sheldon read from Code Section 1106.03 Subd. 7 which stated the accessory uses allowed in the R-1 District. Director Sheldon stated that it is very common practice for residents to hold garage sales, for example, and the only provision which staff found which would allow such uses is this Subd. 7. If garage sales are allowed, she suggested that estate sales be treated in the same manner. The concerns that the staff had were for the amount of traffic and on-street parking. Director Sheldon stated that it is the staffs recommendation that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, find that estate auctions are included as an accessory use in the residential districts as provided in Section 1106.03 Subd. 7, as long as the noise, parking and traffic associated with the sale are deemed to be only a temporary inconvenience in the neighborhood and did not reach the level of being a nuisance and public safety hazard. Chair Peterson asked if Director Sheldon was looking for a voice vote from the Commission. Director Sheldon stated that she needed a motion and a second that would indicate that "Yes you do agree that this would be considered incidental to the residential use." Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to approve the Code Interpretation of Section 1106.03 Subd.7, to include estate sales as an incidental use to the dwelling unit as long as they were only a temporary inconvienence in the neighborhood and did not reach the level of being a nuisance and public safety hazard. Chair Peterson stated that he had no problem with the issue but stated that the events be a one-time occurrence for the specified individual and not turn into an every weekend type of sale. A question was asked about the type of signage to be used. 410 9 • Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 1997 Regular Meeting Mat Schultz, representing Hilda Braley and the auctioneering firm, stated that two, 1'x3' signs and six 2'x3' signs will be put up to advertise the sale. The signs would be put up the day of the sale and removed the day of the sale. Commissioner Miller asked how the public food sales would be handled. Schultz stated that a private vendor had been contracted with to provide this service. The applicant wanted to have the sale on August 23, 1997 and if that date was not acceptable the next available date would be September 1, 1997. He estimated the attendance to be 200 people. With an estimated 1.5 persons per car the need for parking would be for approximately 133 cars. This parking would be done on City streets and Greenfield Park. Commissioner Stevenson commented that the applicant should coordinate with the Mounds View Parks and Recreation department to make sure there were no tournament events at the Park on the same day as the auction, so there would be no parking conflicts. Director Sheldon commented that she would have Mary Saarion, Parks and Recreation Director, contact Schultz Auctioneers to coordinate on the date of the auction. • Chair Peterson asked for a vote on the motion. Motion carried: 5 ayes, 0 nays. Director Sheldon requested that the remaining Special Meeting agenda be placed in the Agenda meeting agenda and that the Special Meeting be adjourned. 7. Adjournment There being no further business before the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:28 p.m. (The agenda meeting immediately followed the special meeting). Respectfully submitted, mes Ericson Planning Associate • 10 • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 512-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE ALLOWING FOR AN AIR CONDITIONING UNIT TO BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD OF 2209 BRONSON DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. 494-97 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Diane and Craig Weinmann, residing at 2209 Bronson Drive; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is legally described as: The south 140 feet of the west 75 feet of the east 165.01 feet of Lot 13, Block 1, Spring Lake Park Highlands, Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated 40¢ with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Letter from Applicant/Photo Documentation WHEREAS, the applicants are faced with a hardship not of their own making in that the line connecting an existing air conditioning unit to their furnace room has deteriorated and needs to be replaced. The line is embedded in a finished ceiling and cannot be replaced in the same • . •• a .I i• !. • • ' V Y • - WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicants in that inferior materials were used in the installation of the air conditioner and the lines to the furnace are buried within the finished ceiling of the basement, all of which occurred prior to the applicants taking possession of the house; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicants any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that the benefits of air conditioning are often desired by home owners and the placement of air conditioning units outside is a typical improvement in single family districts; and, • Planning Commission Resolution 512-97 July 16, 1997 Page 2 WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship in that the unfinished portion of the basement and location of the furnace are at the front of the house; 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 with appropriate screening, the unit would not be visible from the street or adjoining neighbors; 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 air conditioning unit will stand no more than thirty six inches (36") in front of the home. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Diane and Craig Weinmann of 2209 Bronson Drive to allow the siting of an air conditioning unit in the front yard of the residence, with the following condition: 1. The applicants shall screen the air conditioning unit from view by a mixture of plantings as approved by the Planning Commission and provide a certified check in the amount of one hundred ($100) dollars to the City at the time permits are pulled for installation of the air conditioning unit to guarantee the planting screen is installed. Funds shall be returned upon installation of planting materials. Adopted this 16th day of July, 1997 Jerry P er I Chairman ATTEST mory,LL ,Pika,45, Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (SEAL) 411) NADATA\USERS\PAMS\SHAREIDEVCASES\494971AC-VARRES MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 514-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE SILVER LAKE COMMONS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED AT 2625-2665 HIGHWAY 10; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 487-97 WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate, Inc. has applied for a development review to renovate the existing Red Oak Apartments and to construct a 16-unit townhouse development on the parcels located at 2625 -2655 Highway 10, property zoned R-3 and R-4, medium and high density residential, legally described as follows: LOTS 78 THROUGH 82 AND LOT 83, EXCEPT THE REAR 150 FEET THEREOF; SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 23, RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for this and similar projects; and, • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this development review request: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Revised Site,Grading and Landscape Plans,dated 7/1/97 4. Letter from the Applicant 5. Letter from MnDOT,dated 6/26/97 6. Hydrological Review by Rocky Keehn,dated 6/6/97 7. Memo from Rocky Keehn,dated 7/9/97 8. Memo from Mark Bishop,Fire Marshal,dated 5/28/97 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made findings that the application from MSP Real Estate, Inc. meets the dimensional requirements as stated below: Reauired Proposed: Met ? Building Setbacks: Front (Highway 10): 30 feet 48 feet Yes Front(Eastwood): 30 feet 30 feet Yes Rear: 30 feet 48 feet Yes Parking Lot Setbacks: 5 feet 5 feet Yes Minimum lot width: 100 feet 390 feet Yes • Minimum lot area: (2,500 square feet per D. U.): Existing Red Oak Silver Lake Commons (New) 40,000 sq.ft. 94,090 sq.ft. Yes Planning Commission Resolution No.514-97 Silver Lake Commons Development Review July 16, 1997 Page 2 Building height: 45 feet 30 feet Yes Minimum floor area per D.U.: Three bedroom units: 870 sq.ft. 1,320 sq.ft. Yes Four bedroom units: 920 sq.ft. 1,620 sq.ft. Yes Parking requirements:' Uncovered: (1.5 per unit) 84 spaces 65 spaces No* Covered: (1.0 per unit) 56 spaces 57 spaces Yes *With proof of parldng, a total of 84 spaces can be provided (1) A variance in parking ratios to allow a reduction to 65 surface spaces was granted by the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 513-97. Approval of this development review is contingent upon approval of this variance. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the landscape plan as proposed satisfies the requirements of the Code as amended below: The landscaping proposed for this site has been reviewed by the City Forester, who has recommended changing one of the tree types (Regal Elm)for a more appropriate species (Hackberry). The sod line should be realigned to encompass the children's play area as • indicated in the staff report. A gate should be added to the chain link fence along Eastwood Road to accommodate pedestrian access and a path connecting the parking lot with Eastwood Road. A row of Anthony Waterer Spirea or Dwarf Korean Lilac (depending upon availability) should be added in between the parking lot and Highway 10 front of the townhouse units. The 26 stall garage building should be shifted down 18 feet to allow for greenspace at either end, instead of only at one end. A Spring Snow Crab tree shall be planted on both sections of greenspace. If the 10 inch Elm shown on the landscape plan can be retained after the garages have been repositioned, the Spring Snow Crab at this end will not be necessary. Last, the three Black Hills Spruce shown to be added in the open area along Eastwood Road should be pushed back toward the fenceline so as to maintain an open, unimpeded playing area. WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the drainage plan for this site and has found • it acceptable and consistent with the Master Drainage Plan previously approved by the City Council and Rice Creek Watershed District; and, WHEREAS, the City Fire Marshal has reviewed the site plans and finds the layout meets Fire Department requirements for emergency vehicle access. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the development review for the Silver Lake Commons development project proposed by MSP Real Estate, Inc. be approved subject to the following contingencies: Planning Commission Resolution No. 514-97 0 Silver Lake Commons Development Review July 16, 1997 Page 3 1. Prior to action by the City Council on this development review, the applicant shall: a. Revise the landscape plan to show Hackberry trees in place of the Regal Elm trees. b. Revise the parking layout to show one additional parking space so that the total count of surface parking is 84 spaces, of which 19 spaces are indicated as future stalls which could be added if deemed necessary by the • City or property owner. c. Add a note to the site plan which states: "A variance in required parking ratios was approved for this property by Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97. The parking ratios approved for this property are as follows: 1.15 surface space per dwelling unit 1 garage space per dwelling unit 8- The property owner is obligated to build up to an additional 19 parking spaces, which would meet the parking ratios required by the Zoning Code, if deemed necessary by the City based on future parking patterns 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." d. Add a gate to the chain link fence and add a path to the site plan that connects the parking lot with Eastwood Road, north of the play area. e. Add a row of Anthony Waterer Spirea or Dwarf Korean Lilac(either, depending upon species availability)to the area between the parking lot/driveway and the Highway 10 right of way in front of the townhouses. f. Change the sod-line indicated on the site plan to include the play structure as shown in Figure 2 of the staff report. g. Move the three Black Hills Spruces shown in the open play area back to the fenceline to maintain an open, unimpeded play area. 0 h. Obtain a permanent drainage easement for that area on 7800 Eastwood Road to be regraded for drainage and flood control purposes. The Id easement shall be executed prior to approval of the development review by the City Council. Planning Commission Resolution No. 514-97 Silver Lake Commons Development Review July 16, 1997 Page 4 2. Prior to obtaining any building permits or grading permits, the applicant shall perform the following: a. Install snow fences or another type of demarcation device around those areas where trees are to be retained. The area shall be of sufficient width so as to protect the trees' root systems. The use of heavy equipment shall be prohibited in these areas, and the property owner/developer shall be responsible for monitoring construction activities to make certain these restrictions are enforced. b. Obtain permit approval from MnDOT for the relocation of the entrance to the project area, the construction of a right turn lane into the project, an acceleration lane for right turns exiting the project and for any regrading within the MnDOT right of way. c. A development contract shall be drafted and reviewed by the applicant. It shall include surety for construction of the Highway 10 right of way improvements. The contract shall be executed prior to the issuance of building permits. 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 July, 1997. Jerry P so Chairperson A1"1'hST: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (SEAL) NADATA\USERSWAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\487-971DEV REVU.RES • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 513-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE IN PARKING RATIOS FOR THE SILVER LAKE COMMONS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, PROPOSED AT 2625 - 2665 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 487-97 WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate, Inc. has applied for a variance of parking ratios associated with the renovation of the existing Red Oak Apartments and the development of 16 townhouse units on parcels located at 2625 - 2665 Highway 10, property zoned R-3 and R-4, Medium and High Density Residential Districts, legally described as follows: LOTS 78 THROUGH 82 AND LOT 83, EXCEPT THE REAR 150 FEET THEREOF; SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 23, 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: • Multiple Family: 1.5 uncovered, surface parking spaces per unit and at least 1 covered garage space per unit, for a total of 2.5 per unit. WHEREAS, according to the Zoning Code, the number of parking spaces that would be required for the 56 units proposed by the applicant are as follows: Surface parking(uncovered): 56 x 1.5 = 84 Garage parking (covered): 56 x 1.0 = 56 Total parking spaces required: 140 WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed parking ratios used by other municipalities and parking guidelines as developed by the American Planning Association and recommend the following ratios: Multiple Family: 1.15 uncovered, surface parking spaces per unit and at least 1 covered garage space per unit, for a total of 2.15 per unit. WHEREAS, utilizing the adjusted parking ratios, the number of parking spaces required for this development would be 121 spaces, broken down as follows: • Surface parking (uncovered): 56 x 1.15 = 65 Garage parking (covered): 56 x 1.0 = 56 Total parking spaces required: 121 Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97 Silver Lake Commons Project Planning Case No. 487-97 • July 16, 1997 Page 2 WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to provide 65 surface spaces and 57 garage spaces for a total of 122 spaces, one more than what would be required using the adjusted parking ratios. There is sufficient room on the property to convert greenspace into an additional 19 spaces to meet the 140 spaces required by the Zoning Code. 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 Site, Grading and Landscape Plans, date stamped 7/1/97 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. The existing Red Oak Apartments presently do not meet the parking requirements as established in Section 1121.13 of the Zoning Code. This condition is pre-existent to the development project under consideration as Silver Lake Commons and was not caused by the applicants or the current owners of the Red Oak Apartments. While there is ample room to provide the full amount of parking required by the Zoning Code, the applicant would prefer to bank the stalls as greenspace in order to beautify the site and to provide additional open areas for recreation. Research has shown that the Mounds View parking requirements are much higher in comparison to neighboring communities and communities across the country. The applicant should not be responsible for the City's parking requirements. It is advantageous to bank excess stalls as greenspace 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 granting of variances to allow for"Proof of Parking" is considered to be a benefit to the environment by not maximizing impervious surfaces in a development. Similar variances have been granted for other recent projects. Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97 Silver Lake Commons Project Planning Case No. 487-97 • July 16, 1997 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: 1.15 uncovered spaces per dwelling unit (65 spaces) and one garage space per dwelling unit(56). 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 sufficient space be reserved on the site plan for providing the 19 spaces needed to meet the City's current parking ratios. 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 multiple family developments. 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. The approximate 3,420 square-foot reduction of impervious surface is an environmental and aesthetic • benefit. 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. The granting of this variance will be a benefit to neighboring properties mainly for aesthetic reasons by preserving additional greenspace and reducing impervious surface. 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 Silver Lake Commons development as submitted by MSP Real Estate, Inc. with the following stipulations: 1. The parking ratios applicable to this property shall be as follows: Surface Parking (uncovered): 1.15 spaces per dwelling unit Garage Parking (covered): 1 space per dwelling unit 2. Prior to action by the City Council on the development review for this project, and in order for this variance to remain in effect, the applicant shall: Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97 Silver Lake Commons Project Planning Case No. 487-97 July 16, 1997 • Page 4 a. Revise the parking layout to show one additional future parking space so that the total number of possible surface parking stalls is 84, of which 19 spaces are shown in parking areas which could be added if deemed necessary by the City or property owner. b. Add a notation to the site plan which states: "A variance in required parking ratios was approved for this property by Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97. The parking ratios approved for this property are as follows: 1.15 surface space per dwelling unit 1 garage space per dwelling unit The property owner is obligated to build up to an additional 19 parking spaces, which would meet the parking ratios required by the Zoning Code, if deemed necessary by the City based on future parking patterns 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 " 3. Approval of this variance shall be null and void if any one of the following approvals are not obtained for this project: a. Minnesota Department of Transportation permit approval b. Development Review approval by the City Council Adopted this 16th day of July, 1997. Jerry ete on, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST James Ericson, Planning Associate (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES1487-97\PARK-VAR.RES •