Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-1998 PC PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA Special Meeting December 16, 1998 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:01 p.m., December 16, 1998. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Brasaemle(departed 9:20), Johnson, Miller, Obert, and Stevenson(arrived 7:05 departed at 9:20.) Members Absent: None Also Present: Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Council Liaison Koopmeiners, Public Works Director Mike Ulrich, City Attorney Scott Riggs; • and Recorder Stacy Caton. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 565-98, A Resolution Recommending Approval of an 2 Alternate Site Plan(Development Review)for the Proposed Building N Development, Mounds View Business Park. Special Planning Case No. SP-066-98, consideration of an Amendment to Chapter 6 1121 of the Mounds Vicw City Codc(Off Strcet Parking Rcquircmcnts)Regarding Multiple Curb Cuts on Corner Lots within Single-Family-Residential Districts. Resolution No. 566-98, A Resolution Establishing Planning Commission 8 Meeting and Timeline Submission Dates for 1999 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda No citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda were considered. 0 4. Approval of Minutes A. November 18, 1998 Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 Special Meeting Page 2 • Motion/Second: Johnson/Miller to approve the November 18, 1998 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes- 5 Nays- 0 The motion carried. 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 The applicant was present. • Ericson gave the staff report as follows: 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 1994 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 69,582 square-foot building, which is 33 percent smaller than the originally approved 102,950 square-foot building. 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. All setback requirements have been met. 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. Revised plans have also been sent to the City Engineer for their review. The parking provided, according to City 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.) • The revised landscape plan indicates all of the same species, in similar ratios, and even exceeds the previous plan by an additional five plantings. Staff has asked the City Forester to review the Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 Special Meeting Page 3 • revised landscape plan in the event that any of the species have been recently found to be susceptible to disease or any other problems. The access and drive aisles are in conformance with Fire Department requirements and standards. Because of the angled 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. The building will tie into existing watermains and sanitary sewer service. The Fire Marshall has been sent a copy of the utility plan to verify location and number of fire hydrants available for the site and building. Ericson told the Planning Commission of an issue raised earlier in the day by the City Engineer and Director of Public Works regarding the south driveway for the development. It was suggested that Clifton Drive be extended into the Building N and Mounds View Inn properties to eliminate a possible point of traffic conflict. The driveways for the use mentioned are within twenty feet of each other and are directly across from Clifton Drive. Tim Nelson, representing Everest Group, told the Commission that Everest does not have a • tenant for the planned building. The design of the building gives Everest the flexibility it needs to accommodate several types of end users. Several photographs of existing buildings were offered to give the Commission an idea of what the proposed structure would look like. Several reports were offered that gave occupancy information for the type of building that is being proposed. Peterson clarified the fact that the building's interior finishes would not be completed at the time an occupant was signed. Nelson concurred with Peterson's comments. Nelson said Everest is asking for approval of the "plan" so that they have the flexibility of either building the previously approved office/warehouse building or the building that is before the Commission tonight Construction would begin spring of 1999,Nelson added Nelson said the idea of the extension of Clifton and redoing the driveway connection at the southwest corner of the site was a new issue and would be addressed after being analyzed by Everest staff. Nelson did say that the extension seemed problematic from the standpoint that Everest has spent a lot of time developing the alternate building and companion engineering plans. Nelson said Everest would like to keep traffic from the Mounds Inn and this site as far away from each other as possible. Peak hours in the mornings would see traffic coming into the Everest site and peak hours in the afternoon would see traffic leaving, which is just the opposite of the motel traffic pattern. Nelson said Everest would be willing to supply the appropriate signing for the streets in order to minimize traffic congestion. The plat has already been approved combining • four existing legal parcels into one for the proposed site. Filing has not taken place on this yet because of the substantial park dedication fee that goes with development of the site. Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 1111 Special Meeting Page 4 Peterson noted that there were five main entrances for subtenants. Nelson said they were designed in a fashion that would allow two doors off of each entrance if needed. He added the building could be divided down into 5,000 square-foot spaces but the most likely tenant space would be 10,000 square-foot. Peterson asked for clarification in regard to the site's driveway lining up with the car wash. Nelson said the driveway was moved to its current location, as shown on the plan, so it matches up with one of the driveways of the car wash rather than have two staggered. This shouldn't be a conflict. He added before the plan gets to the Council, Everest would review the driveway locations and adjust any conflict that may occur. Ericson said a lighting plan had been submitted and it did meet City requirements. Peterson asked for a description of the retaining wall system located between the proposed building site and the adjacent C.G. Hill site. Nelson said the retaining wall system, a Keystone product, was described in detail in the civil plans for the project. There are also retaining walls along the north side of the property, he added. Miller asked for clarification in regard to snow storage. Nelson said the site did not have a lot of . room for snow storage. Accumulated snow will have to be removed from the site and relocated, Nelson said. Trash will be handled with dumpsters located inside of the building. Pick-ups and deliveries can be handled with grade-level entries located at various sites in the building. This type of building will have significantly less overall semi-truck traffic going to the building,Nelson said. Parking ratios were discussed and deemed acceptable by the Commission. Nelson said the parking in the business park had been designed for the highest range of tenant use and was flexible in terms of accommodating changing parking needs. If a problem with parking developed,Nelson added that the problem would self-correct, as tenants will not lease an area that has insufficient parking for their needs Miller asked if the second stipulation, which was to limit the office coverage in the building to 75 percent, would be eliminated. Obert said it was his opinion that the stipulation should remain as part of the Resolution. Nelson agreed that the market will self-correct the parking needs of each individual site. In this particular case, the site is engineered for 5 stalls per thousand which is almost 100 percent of the requirement in most suburbs. Ericson said staff would be comfortable omitting stipulation item No. 2 from the resolution. Obert asked for an explanation as to what would happen if extra parking is needed for a site that has been engineered for a certain amount of parking, or if parking complaints are lodged by 4110 neighboring businesses. Ericson said the City has no fall-back plan for this situation. This is an issue that is supposed to be under the control of the building owner or occupant, it is supposed to be a self-correcting issue. Obert suggested that the surrounding neighborhoods need protection, Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 Special Meeting Page 5 not necessarily the business park occupants. The private sector will take care of their parking problems, Brasaemle said. Obert expressed his concern that the City needed some type of enforcement for possible parking violations. Nelson said the City can help enforce private property rights. Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 565-98, a resolution recommending approval of an alternate site plan, with stipulations, for development of the 6.89- acre Building N site, Mounds View Business Park, as requested by Everest Group. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Miller to strike stipulation item No. 2 from 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. Ayes - 5 Nays 1 (Obert) The motion carried. Obert said he didn't agree with putting the burden of moving the site's driveway on the developer. Director of Public Works, Mike Ulrich, said it was his opinion that there should be some type of language in the Resolution or Development Agreement that would address accidents that could • happen because of the turning movements on the site and the two entrances into the site. Obert said it would not be fair to the developer to have to maintain a shared access to the site. Peterson said the issue could be addressed with a statement of liability in the Development Agreement. Ulrich said instead of having two driveways the City would extend the public street into the site and be maintained by the City. City Attorney Scott Riggs said it would be very difficult to formulate language that would prevent liability concerns and allow or require a developer to come back some time in the future and restructure the development agreement. The issues being discussed should be handled in the front end of the development process, Riggs said. He recommended, as part of the motion, that the driveway issue, while the City Council can make up its own mind and staff can suggest a different solution to the problem, be stated as not being a problem because it is part of the approved plan. Brasaemle suggested that the staff report reflect the Commission's opinion that the driveway issue was not a problem. This would eliminate the need to have the Resolution's language reflect the Commission's opinion, he added. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to recommend to the City Council approval 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, as amended in the previous motion. 1111 Ayes- 6 Nays - 0 The motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 Special Meeting Page 6 Ulrich made the comment that the City should consider completing the curb and gutter system in the business park in an effort to eliminate future parking and traffic problems. He asked that the staff report written in regard to this evening's meeting reflect this suggestion. Ericson said the report would reflect Ulrich's comments. Special Planning Case No. SP-066-98 [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 Cuts On Corner Lots within Single-Family Residential Districts. No public was present Peterson opened the public hearing. Riggs gave his report as follows: • City Attorney Riggs said, "The issue had come down to whether Mr. Tobias had done repair work or had done replacement outright of his driveway. The bottom line is that Mounds View's City Code doesn't cover the issue. Like many city codes, they don't cover everything. They are intended as a guideline. In Mr. Tobias' case, a nonconforming situation was destroyed by more than 50 percent, which should not have been rebuilt," Riggs stated. He added, Mr. Tobias' driveway is now in violation of the Code and would require a variance. "The idea of nonconformity is if it does not conform once it reaches the end of its useful life, that end period, its done. If you're replacing a driveway because you can't overlay it, that suggests it is to the point where it has amortized itself out, and that's the idea of a nonconforming statute, or ordinance, which the City has," Riggs said. Peterson said the last time the Commission was faced with this issue the same conclusion was drawn. The applicant was in violation of the Code. Obert said Tobias' driveway was a nonconforming use to begin with. Not only was the old asphalt removed and the base underneath, but the tree roots underneath the base were removed, Obert said. He said the homeowner had signed an agreement with the contractor that showed no driveway going out to Sherwood Road. The City's Codes are put in place to protect all of the City's residents. Granting of variances to skirt the Code should not be the norm, but the exception, Obert said. The Council's request to consider rewriting the code to accommodate a variance request would set an extremely dangerous precedent, he added. Ericson asked Riggs how other City's view driveway replacement. Should the City's Code reflect • that a driveway that is "there" can be maintained, and can be repaired, and that the repair may involve taking the driveway out and putting in new Class 5 and new asphalt? Does that constitute Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 Special Meeting Page 7 removing the old driveway and putting in a new driveway? Or is it just simple maintenance and repair, Ericson asked. Miller said in the City's other Codes that apply to conditions that are destroyed more than 50 percent, those situations have to be brought up to code. Tobias'two curb cuts are nonconforming and you aren't bringing it up to code by fixing it up. Riggs said the easiest way to read the Code is that Tobias' situation was a destruction and would cease the nonconformity at that point in time. The cities that have been used for comparison have a little better definition of what a "damage and destruction" is, Riggs said. Peterson recommended considering the curb cut issue separate from the driveway replacement issue. The Commission concurred. Ulrich said his only concern with Tobias' situation is how close his driveway is to the intersection and the safety issue involved with Tobias backing out of his driveway into heavy traffic conditions. Johnson said he would not be in favor of changing the ordinance because of the precedent it would set. It invites other residents to request variances because of some situation that is not allowed by Code. Peterson asked if there were setback requirements for a driveway to • a corner. The Code stipulates 50' in either direction of an intersection, Ulrich added. Brasaemle said it was his opinion that the Council should decide on this variance request based on the merits of the particular case. If the City needs to revisit the Code, that should be done in a more research orientated approach rather than making the Code change based on this one case. Koopmeiners stated in all of his years working for the Police Department he had never seen an accident that involved a two-curb-cut lot. Peterson closed the public hearing. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Stevenson to inform the City Council that after considering testimony at the public hearing, it is the opinion of the Planning Commission that Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View City Code(Off-Street Parking Requirements)Regarding Multiple Curb Cuts on corner Lots within Single Family Residential Districts, should stand "as is." Ayes- 6 Nays- 0 The motion carried. The Commission directed staff to gather information on what constitutes repair work and what constitutes replacement work in regard to residential driveways in the City of Mounds View. This would include criteria for different types of building and all applicable setback issues. The • information can be presented to the Commission at a later Planning Commission Meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 • Special Meeting Page 8 7. Resolution No. 566-98 A Resolution Establishing Planning Commission Meeting and Timeline Submission Dates for 1999. This item was added to the agenda. Motion/Second: Obert/Johnson to approve Resolution No. 566-98, A Resolution Establishing Planning Commission Meeting and Timeline Submission Dates for 1999. Ayes - 4 Nays- 0 The motion carried. 8. Staff Reports Jopke told the Commission that Dave Hix has submitted his letter of resignation. He has accepted a position in Tampa, Florida. A Resolution of Appreciation will be drafted and forwarded to Dave in appreciation for his work with the City. • 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports No reports were considered. 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director • 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. 543-98 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, SWHEREAS, 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 Alternate 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. 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 Pete on, Chairperson ATTEST: 7 A-W.)6 Rick Jopke, Commu ty Development Director SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\543-98\565-98PC.RES • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION III RESOLUTION NO. 566-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND TIMELINE SUBMISSION DATES FOR 1999 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission will be holding two business meetings per month during 1999 with the exception of Special Meetings; the first being a regular meeting and the second an agenda session; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has requested to review regular business meeting agenda items at their agenda session, a minimum of two weeks prior to the regular business meeting; and WHEREAS, developers, citizens or other interested parties should be advised of deadlines for materials used by staff to prepare a report and used by the Planning Commissioners to decide on a particular development issue; and IIIWHEREAS, a display of meeting dates and submission deadline dates be established to provide an orderly system for use by the Planning Commission, staff and general public; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View establishes meeting and submission timetable dates setting deadlines for submission of materials for agenda sessions of the Planning Commission and also setting the dates of the regular business meetings and agenda sessions; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Exhibit 1, attached hereto, becomes an integral part of this resolution; BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that if the Planning Commission is required to or desires to hold special meetings,they will do so in accordance with State law, Code requirements and the Bylaws. Adopted this 16th day of December, 1998. ATTEST: \3:., ..,.„.Jerry Pet on, hair • (SEAL) fkraL Rick Jopke, C mmunity Development Director c 0 C L.L. o ON N C7) ®G C� .y�N Or( V) c — Cr C *g 0 • M- *- q tr N N t.7 r N N C7) .-- N O� ct ... n a k �% T N N cyr_o,„,, cceq r N N o W T-_-_. W _ ti .r 1— to r ON N H C� O0 1.... N C') m T N N c to r N 0 N Q) CD N COO V co N N o Cr CO Q c T g q < T q CNV COV 1.11 q T O N N q tn N N c" • N C'7 co COy N Ll. to cv Q) Ivo N O �y�N tt7 rgco N cla }— 4 r CO LC) r Co r N N `4 r CO RI �. o oar 0,0,,. ,..._:, e © c, cm, _ W r r Cn - N o) CD N O� co ON N 03 N C7) N C 7 2 C to = c t• Z r co N N ca }- r r- N > r- CO 1.0 N N co 7 ;; tidJ C/) 2 ti T N N 2 `- r ,- N z . T N OCy a C _ E w O 0 - ^O c • •y C't U 44. •E �{ Ci) to , N N to CV Q? N CD N O N CO o m amici 0 U U LL q ilivN r COASAr Co TN orm., N,\ WO M- Q *r- .r- N Tco O N-v- N N. r N N0 > •F. �eOr N eer)07V)a cc Pe) �et:20CV Z 0 Q a+ t- < N C7) C2 N r (n r N 11.1 to T 0, N & In CAI r Co r Cao to w. 0 c CCCO r q Z ti r NCV '� r r N 0» c U N U- N N co ' N N 0 c'� Or r CV C ) CO N co N r q r N N *—c., c) - N_ LL r Co in ~ N r �� r a .o i 1 ,► = c c F- ti ' ' �- CO Co C") O N- N Co Ca c'') Ni U � r N N r N N *- N" �o .IC2 CA- 8,c-N-CDR Eiceco®&.1 -o H cc to N.. N Q r Nti N 0 as ami to aa) *~- co N z >-_, O� N C) co O N (n t'7 • r N C''') N CA N cr) Cwj} N 0 • •�