HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-1994 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1994
6:00 P.M.
1. Continued Discussion Regarding Draft Nuisance Ordinance
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
7:30 P.M.
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes: September 7, 1994 (Enclosed)
•
2. Discussion Regarding Development Request of Everest Development, 5XXX
Program Avenue, Planning Case No. 397-94
3. Discussion Regarding Variance Request of Lawrence Klemz, 2147 Pinewood
Drive, Planning Case No. 396-92
4. Discussion Regarding Code Appeal Request of Colonial Village, 2075 Rustad
Lane, Planning ease No. 391-94
5. Conditioned—D' i . ` egar s ing eve opmen ' eview ' eques o rouse
Cartage Company, 2169 Mustang Drive
NOTE: Planning Commission may call to order to take action regarding this
item.
****************************************************************
APPLICANTS: YOUR A` IENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO Al'1'END. THANK YOU.
• MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
DATE: September 16, 1994
SUBJECT: JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL RE: NUISANCE CODE
At their September 7, 1994 Work Session, the City Council asked
Staff to compile their comments into one proposed revision sheet
and organize a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to
discuss the Commissions' recommendations as well as the City
Council's. As agreed to by the members of the Commission present
at the September Work Session, the joint meeting will be held at
6:00 p.m. this Wednesday immediately preceding the regularly
scheduled 7: 30 PC meeting.
I have enclosed a copy of a memorandum I prepared for the City
Council incorporating the recommendations made at the August PC
• meeting. Also, I have included a similar list of issues/comments
the Council has regarding the document.
If you have any questions or, need copies of any other materials,
please give me a call .
•
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section:
lir STAFF REPORT Report Number: 94 1L83Ws
• AGENDA SESSION DATE SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 Report Date: 9-7-9L
DISPOSITION
.:a rr. 0escr.:7.
Discussion of Nuisance Ordinance
;f;.., ..:4z r:ors ?..evtewaec=er_ :r.or.:
• No con=e.^.= suppie^_ert :1.-±s repot- 11,''
- Core a zc ed.
. rbia^.b. ont:Sur r..7 (arae. sappie.:sat sbee= as �e=sarq.)
57 i1Tw. i
• STAFF REPORT
PAGE TWO
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
604. 03 Subd. 2 - Felt this entire Subdivision may belong in another
area of the Code or, possibly, be a Chapter itself.
604 . 03 Subd. 3 a - City currently clears all sidewalks - is this
provision necessary?
604. 03 Subd. 3 d - Add "outside" after 'The' and before 'piling' .
Eliminate "within the City" at the end of the provision.
604 . 03 Subd. 3 h - Looking for Council direction on this one.
604 . 03 Subd. 3 -i - Replace "original value" with "fair market
value" . _
604 . 03 Subd. 3 m - Replace "whose wheels or tires deposit" with
"that deposit's" .
604 . 03 Subd. 3 cc - Eliminate items iii and iv as these conditions
already exist in certain parts of the City.
• 604 . 04 Subd. 2 b - Looking for Council direction on item iii.
604 . 06 Subd. 1 - Eliminate item b. Replace definition in item c
with definition from 604 . 07 Subd. 1 e.
604 . 06 Subd. 3 c - Item i should be in bold (it was added) . Word
item ii as follows: "Vehicles which are parked or stored outside
shall be on an improved surface as defined in Title xxx, Chapter
yyy, Subdivision zzz of this Code.
604 . 06 Subd. 3 e - Eliminate this item.
604 . 06 Subd. 4 - Planning Commission does not want "grandfathering"
to occur. Would prefer amortization of the existing non-conforming
uses.
604 . 06 Subd. 5 - Felt this item should be at the end of 604 . 06
because it is an enforcement procedure (I know what you're saying
-it is at the end of 604 . 06 - please see the next item for an
explanation) .
604 . 07 - Planning Commission felt that the items and provisions
contained in 604 . 07 were related to those in 604 . 06 and therefore
all of the 604 . 07 items should just be a continuation of 604. 06 .
604 . 07 Subd. 1 - reletter the definitions as follows: a becomes c,
b becomes d, c - e, d - a, e - b.
• STAFF REPORT
PAGE THREE
SEPTEMBER 7 , 1994
** At this point, the numbering of the document gets very
confusing. I apologize for that and, will try to keep things as
clear as possible from this point on. As I stated earlier, the
numbering of the document will be done following review. For
reference purposes I will continue to use the numbers as currently
written.
604 . 07 NOISE CONTROL - Put Subd. 3 in 605. 00 ENFORCEMENT. As was
the case in the vehicle section, the Planning Commission felt that
this subdivision was an enforcement mechanism and should be
included in that area of the Ordinance.
604 . 07 VIOLATION OF PROVISION - Eliminate this item - it is
included in 605 . 00 .
604 . 08 - The Planning Commission felt this section should be
included in the "Building" Chapter of the Code.
604 . 09 - Eliminate (already in 605 . 00) .
605 . 00 - Renumber to 604 . 10
605 . 00 Subd. 3 - In each place where 'City Clerk' is mentioned,
change to 'Clerk Administrator' . Also, where it states " . . . other
official designated by the Council . . . " , change 'to "their
designee" .
A copy of the draft Nuisance Ordinance was forwarded to the City
Council in early August so that adequate time for review was
available. Staff will await City Council direction on the
recommendations.
•
• CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
MOUNDS VIEW NUISANCE ORDINANCE
604 . 01 Subd. 3 - Use Minnesota State Law definition.
604 . 02 Subd. 1 - Concerned with the use and meaning of the terms
"morals" and "considerable number" . Add language regarding the
specific threat these types of properties pose to children.
604 . 02 Subd. 5 - Have a separate definition for Public property vs.
Private property.
604 . 02 Subd. 6 - Vague.
604 . 02 Subd. 7 - Add item C to item D.
604 . 03 Subd. 1 (a) - Include holding ponds in this definition (it
may already be included in the use of the words "all ponds") .
604. 03 Subd. 1 (b) - What does this mean?
604 . 03 Subd. 1 (c) - Remove.
604 . 03 Subd. 1 (d) - Allow for deer carcasses.
• 604 . 03 Subd. 1 (f) - Should "Privy Vaults" be included in this
definition.
604 . 03 Subd. 1 (h) - Somewhat vague.
604 . 03 Subd. 1 (i) - Question whether or not "ground" , "sand" , and
"stones" need to be included in this definition. Composting is
included in a later section but, it could be construed to be a part
of this provision and, therefore, not allowed. Add "glass and food
containers" .
604 . 03 Subd. 1 ej+-- hat is "Offensive"?
604 . 03 Subd. 1 (m) - May be to vague. For example, does this
definition include HIV positives?
604 . 03 Subd. 2 (a) - Does (should) this include Pull-Tabs? Some
forms of gambling are legal.
604 . 03 Subd. 2 (d) - Clarify this provision by citing Mounds View
and State of Minnesota regulations regarding the sale and
consumption of intoxicating liquor.
604 . 03 Subd. 2 (f) - Difficult to define. Who decides what is
obscene, immoral, etc. ? Some are legal now.
604 . 03 Subd. 2 (g) - See Above.
604 . 03 Subd. 2 (h) - Possibly reword.
604 . 03 Subd. 2 (i) - See (f) and (g) above.
604 . 03 Subd. 3 (a) - Eliminate. City and County clear sidewalks.
604 . 03 Subd. 3 (d) - Can it be stored inside, out of public view?
Possibly add rusting metal, appliances, any inoperable, unusable
equipment or structures (i.e. old camping and truck toppers,
dilapidated fish houses and storage sheds) .
604. 03 Subd. 3 (h) 1 & 2 - Need to define how it is stacked. Keep
piles behind the front building line of the structure. Allowable
heights - 12 to 48 inches. Get input from City Forester.
604. 03 Subd. 3 (m) - Need to clarify.
604 . 03 Subd. 3 (o) - Does this exclude gas and oil cans?
604 . 03 Subd. 3 (q) - Unreasonable and Unnecessary to whom?
604 . 03 Subd. 3 (r) - Clarify footcandle readings at the property
lines.
604 . 03 Subd. 3 (u) - Would the wording of this provision outlaw
garage sales and auctions?
604 . 03 Subd. 3 (w) - Vague.
604 . 03 Subd. 3 (dd) - Strong sentiment for making sure this
provision applies to garage sale signs.
604. 04 - Opinions differ on whether or not this section should: a)
Be included in the Building Chapter of the Code; b) Be a part of
the Nuisance Chapter; or, c) Whether these provisions are too
intrusive on peoples property rights and should be left out
completely.
604 . 06 Subd. 1 - Make sure the wording of this provision does not
impact temporary construction sites - residential or commercial.
604. 06 Subd. 2 - What is a "large" number? Item (c) - Do we want
this stated in this Subdivision? Item (d) - Commercial advertising
is not allowed in residential districts.
604 . 06 Subd. 3 (a) - Consider eliminating "unless more than 100
feet back from the front property line" at the endof this
provision. Some homes are setback more than 100 feet and this
wording would allow storage in a front yard.
604 . 06 Subd. 3 (b) - Consider eliminating "unless shielded from
public view by an opaque cover or fence" at the end of this
provision.
604. 06 Subd. 3 (c) i - Eliminate this provision or reword.
604 . 06 Subd. 3 (e) - Eliminate.
604 . 06 Subd. 4 (c) - Amortization vs. Grandfathering.
604 . 07 Subd. 1 (a) - Add specific conditions (i.e. leaking fluids,
battery acid, etc. to help justify cases which end up in court) .
604 . 07 Subd. 1 (c) - Ensure that operable, licensed cars which are
put up on blocks for storage are not included in the Junk Vehicle
definition.
605. 00 ENFORCEMENT - Check with City Attorney to see if water meter
readers can report violations back to City Staff.
NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS
Subd. 1 - Vague. Who decides what "loud, disturbing and
unnecessary noises" are?
Subd. 2 (a) - Does the wording of this provision allow for
construction work by the owner of a property at any time of day?
What about work on Saturday's?
• PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
September 7, 1994
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
The Mounds View Planning Commission was 1. Call To Order
called to order by Chair Peterson at
7:30 p.m. on September 7, 1994.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners 2 . Roll Call
Stevenson, Nelson, Miller, Johnston, and
Chair Peterson. Commissioners Colleen
and Ruggles had excused absences.
ALSO PRESENT: Planning Associate Pruitt
and Recording Secretary Benesch were
also present.
Motion/Second: Nelson/Miller to approve 3 . Approval of
the minutes of August 3 , 1994, as Minutes:
• amended. August 3 , 1994
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
There were no resident requests or 4 . Resident
comments from the floor. Requests and
Comments
The applicants, Larry and Susan Potts, 5. Consideration
were present. of Resolution
No. 399-94
Chair Peterson reminded the Commission Regarding the
that this item was discussed extensively Variance
at the August 17th agenda session. The Request of
Planning Commission briefly reviewed the Larry and Susan
variance request of Larry and Susan Potts, 5299
Potts noting that the applicant desired Clifton Drive,
to construct an addition four feet from Planning Case
an existing detached garage. It was No. 394-94
discussed that although the Mounds View
Code requires a 6' setback between
structures, the Uniform Building Code
allows structures to be closer than 6'
with the proper installation of fire
walls.
Motion/Second: Nelson/Stevenson to
approve Resolution No. 399-94 regarding
Mounds View Planning Commission September 7, 1994
•Regular Meeting Page 2
the variance request of Larry and Susan
Potts, 5299 Clifton Drive.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Chair Peterson informed that applicants
that no further action was needed and a
building permit could now be applied
for.
The applicant, Brady Neumann, was 6. Consideration
present. of Resolution
No. 400-94
Chair Peterson reminded the Planning Regarding
Commission that this item had been Conditional Use
discussed at their August 17th agenda Permit Request
session. The applicant explained his of Brady
request to the Planning Commission and Neumann, 8425
inquired as to his options. The Spring Lake
• Planning Commission again examined the Road, Planning
applicant's request and advised him of Case No. 400-94
the possible options for his garage.
The Planning Commission revised the
proposed resolution to reflect that the
garage could not exceed 1, 264 square
feet. It was also noted that since the
applicant is proposing a garage to
exceed 1, 000 square feet, the existing
shed on the property must be removed
prior to final building permit approval.
Mr. Neumann expressed his concern
regarding the maximum square footage
allowed for his garage. The Commission
explained that they realized his lot was
unique in that in was larger than most
Mounds View lots, however, the Planning
Commission agrees that the maximum
square footage allowed by Code was
appropriate for Mounds View.
Motion/Second: Stevenson/Nelson to
approve Resolution No. 400-94,
• recommending approval of the conditional
use permit request of Brady Neumann,
8425 Spring Lake Road.
Mounds View Planning Commission September 7, 1994
• Regular Meeting Page 3
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Chair Peterson informed the applicant
that a public hearing would be set at
the September 12th City Council meeting
to be held on September 26th. Mr.
Neumann expressed his concern about time
constraints and wondered if the process
could be expedited. He informed the
Planning Commission that he would be
calling Mr. Harrington, Community
Development Coordinator, the following
day.
There was no staff report. 7. Staff Report
Members present at the August 17, 1994, 8. Report of Chair
agenda session included Commissioners
Nelson, Miller, Johnston, and Chair
• Peterson. Commissioners Colleen,
Stevenson, and Ruggles had excused
absences.
There being no further business before 9 . Adjournment
the Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned
the meeting at 7: 54 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joyce Pruitt
Planning Associate
• MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
DATE: September 16, 1994
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT PLAN/REZONING/MAJOR SUBDIVISION
EVEREST DEVELOPMENT, MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK
Michael Investments, an Everest Development affiliate, has made
application for the following within the Mounds View Business Park:
1) Development Plan Review - Review of a proposed 102 , 950 square
foot two-story building/facility. The use of the building -
Office/Industrial - is anticipated to be consistent with uses
already existing in the Park. Staff has reviewed the submitted
materials and narrative provided by the applicant and found the
request meets the intent of the Municipal Code as it applies to
this request including land use, setbacks, zoning(if approved) ,
• parking, etc. A review of the provisions, for storm water control
on the site is currently underway. As you will recall, the City
gave approval to the C.G. Hill Company in late Spring of this year
for development of the property immediately West of the current
proposal site. At the time of that approval, storm water drainage
on that project was to be handled by constructing a temporary
detention pond on a portion of the property included in the current
submittal. Please note that the current plan provides a ponding
area on the Southern edge of the site which will service both the
C.G. Hill site and the site currently under consideration for
development. Staff will be meeting with the City Engineer on
Tuesday to discuss the project. Results of that meeting will be
foiwaiued Lu Lhe Commission on Wednesday evening.
2) Rezoning - Currently, a portion of the property involved in the
submittal is zoned B-3 , Highway Commercial (please see attached
map) . The applicant is proposing that the property contained in
their application zoned B-3 be rezoned to PUD, Planned Unit
Development, to provide consistent zoning for the entire Business
Park complex. The original Business Park Concept Plan submitted
and approved by the City in the late 1980's anticipated the
rezoning of these properties and certain rezonings have occurred on
other sites within the past few years.
3) Maior Subdivision - The project site is currently made up of
• four (4) parcels totaling approximately 6. 89 acres. To simplify
the legal description and provide for the single ownership of the
building site, the applicant is proposing to plat the property as
a single parcel. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and has no
• immediate concerns.
I have included a very comprehensive application submittal provided
by the applicant for your review. Everest Development will be
present on Wednesday Evening to give a complete presentation of the
proposal.
•
•
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING APPLICATION
• APPLICANT:• Everest Development, Ltd. Phone 636-5500
2685 Long Lake Road, Roseville, PN 55113
ADDRESS:
Street Address, City, State, and Zip Code
Interest in Property (check appropriate box):
❑ Owner of Property
❑ Contract for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager
❑ Agreement to Purchase
• Other (explain) Developer/Affiliate of owner
Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final City action of this request
PROPERTY INVOLVED:
Address/General Location 5XXX Program Avenue (south of Clinch-On Products Building)
Mounds View Business Park
Legal Owner: Name/Address Michael Investments and Everest Investments Limited
Partnership (both Everest affiliates) ._ 2685 Long Lake Road, Roseville. MN. 55113
Present Use (check appropriate box):
® UndevelopedNacant
❑ Single Family Dwelling
❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling •
. ❑ Multi-Family (No. of Units )
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment
❑ Industrial Establishment
❑ Other (explain).
Property Classification: ® Abstract #] Torrens (Both)
REQUEST: Rezoning from B-3 and I-1 to Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) , Develop-
ment/Site=Plan Review, and Major Subdivision (Mounds View Business Park East 2nd
Addition) in connection with proposed development of Building N, a 102,950 souare
root office/industrial building.
(-)1I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE TRUE. #4
Signature
Rezoning $200/acre,minimum$200,maximum$1,000 Park Fund Dedication Fee
Variance R-1 to R-2-$75,all others$200 Date Paid
Conditional Use Permit R-1 to R-2-$75,all others$200 Receipt Number
Code Appeal $75
++ Develop./Site Plan Review 5100/acre,minimum 100,maximum $500 Additional Fees Paid
Minor Subdivision $150 Date Paid
Major Subdivision $250 plus $250 deposit Receipt Number
Comp. Plan Amendment $200
Wetland Alteration Permit $50 plus deposit determined by Staff TOTAL FEES PAID 9-y-91
Wetland Buffer Permit $10 DATE PAID9
• Planning Sign $50 RECEIPT NUMBER tl!11 X 6PUO $350
PUD Amendment $150 Date of final action
APPROVED Q DENIED ❑ TABLED ❑
Date 9 3 - (i Planning Case No. 3 917—GI`/'' Admin.Account No.
•
�.i v 6 5439 ni o1nICo nen Z
5434 T 5433 `�s 5433 (N I cV I N 1 N I N'N "2 to !'
5434 5425 `Sp 5425 BELLE LN
5420 2� N e n 0 1+ n
5421 542. 5419
N N N N N ("•�
5414 5415 5414 n .- n to la,1 1
5401 n n N o 0 5413 n I CD rn - n fICoi
5406 5405 5406 NINNNN N N ~ n N 5382N1 N�N N�NN5405 NIN N N N NN
BRONSON DRIVE 5380 a
O N in O N Y N O p a Lo 5372
crs C N n c0 In o . n N 0 of r‘-.4
W
w��• Z N N N N N NIN N I N N N I N 5392 5391 5392 5391
,(-�5.=3 O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 5366 0 ��,
till- �/�"''�N 5386 5385 5386 5385 5364 O 5360 _
5®380®Q I I 53801 5379 0 5380 5379K 5358
I rjj' f 537215371 5372 5371 5354 • I
Wa® 5366 I
53641 5363 5364 5363 5352 0
anima
® X57 53581 5357 5358 5357 5344 2 \
Cl) m n Co 01 N ^ ^ all n in 5340 Vi l
®� 5354 N N N N N N N 0 IN rn °.-
0104
° 535215.351 5352 5351 5435 d
5336
3
LAMBERT
A"B� N N NN N N N AVENN N 534415343 534415343 MI 5330 x
5324 c
5 36 5337 /VYIo N No o 04 C U 533815337 5338 5337 5.326
33p ® LAMBERTNIN N N O ^ t0 o N 0
'? ® 5324 N N(N N N N N N N N = 5330)5325 5330 5329 5318
s ® PARK I d 53241 5323 2 5324 5323 0 5316
, I O Z
® 5316 5315 t 5316 53153
5308
••
299 '-1 5308)5307 U 5308 5307 53
001 0
O 5301 53 2 5.30; 5300715299 5300 5299 529 Z
O U Lc?, m an' is n 2 a' n "' a' N - Co a ^ Co 52941 5293 52941 5293 5294 =O 1
~ c N N N N N N N N N N N N N ^l l^1 52900 ...J
Z N N N 'N 1 N N N N N N N N N r417.1 N 52881 5287 52881 5287 5288
• CO RD H2
US°j 0 N
N N 5275
4' N N .- 5267
ryl
5263
tj 5251
o 1
5 /-----N
un 0
N
N
260 '- J
WOOD' DR
• `1� 0 0
', 5205 5200 52, r n
N. • N V
iz-
5230
0"°1" Z t
522• 4 CV
v
521 • ry�. ryryh d
5200 L „j
a
a
0riii.CD o� 000 l tiry
N N N N N
N N N N N
.\9
N •
,k
'1, 14 allf
titi°, C'G
�°� r�,. z
tiry°O ` O• X2146'
t# - • W
• CREEK
RICE Q
9
v rn rn rnrn
N N N Of CV N
1
,
• Y J
In
LLI
1
0 . h° I-
IX
-t - v. 1,,,...
H
. Z
Ke1 WAY .ANE
•
EVEREST DEVELOPMENT LTD
A MEMBER OF THE EVEREST GROUP LTD
August 26, 1994
Paul Harrington
Community Development Coordinator
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Re: Planning Application
Mounds View Business Park-Building N
Dear Paul:
•
Enclosed and submitted to you is a completed-Planning Application concerning the
proposed development and construction of an approximate 103,000 sq. ft. office/
industrial facility on the so-called Building N site in Mounds View Business Park. The
following approvals are requested:
1. Major subdivision (Mounds View Business Park East 2nd Addition);
2. Development/Site Plan Review;
3. Rezoning the property from B-3/I-1 to P.U.D.
Included with the Planning Application are fifteen (15) full-size blue-line copies and
two (2) 8 1/2" x 11" reduction copies of the following related plan sheets:
(a) Site and Landscape Plan (Sheet SL1) prepared by the architectural firm
of Dovolis, Johnson and Ruggieri, Inc. (DJR);
(b) Building Elevations (Sheet A3) prepared by DJR;
i
2685 Long Lake Road
P.O. Box 130190 • Roseville, MN 55113
(61?) 616.s;nn F,.•• (H, n,Ql
•
• Page Two
August 26, 1994
(c) Grading/Drainage/Utility/Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C-1) prepared by
our civil engineering consultant, Putnam Consultants, P.A.;
(d) Site Lighting Plans (Sheets El and E1A) prepared by Gephart Electric;
(e) Preliminary Plat of Mounds View Business Park East 2nd Addition,
prepared by our surveyor, All-Metro Development Consultants, P.A.
I am also enclosing fifteen (15) copies of a narrative summary of the proposed Building
N project, an Abstractor's Certificate with a list of property owner's within a radius of
350 feet of the subject property, as required for the Rezoning Application; and our
check in the amount of$2,000 for the applicable application fees and deposits.
We request that you place this Planning Application on the earliest possible meeting
schedule with the Planning Commission and City Council. We anticipate that the
• meeting schedule for review of the Planning Application will be as follows:
Date
Planning Commission Workshop Review: 9/21/94
City Council Workshop Review: 10/3/94
Planning Commission Regular Meeting: 10/5/94
City Council Sets Public Hearing (if required): 10/10/94
City Council Final Review: 10/24/94
Please let me know as soon as possible if you foresee any problems or conflicts in this
intended review schedule.
As you are probably aware, tax increment financing assistance is also being discussed
for this project. We understand and acknowledge that any TIF assistance will require
EDA approval separate and apart from this Planning Application and will depend on
the City/EDA's review and approval of specific tenant(s) and/or owner occupant(s).
• We are submitting this Planning Application so that we may be in a position to respond
• Page Three
August 26, 1994
quickly to an industrial facility requirement when it presents itself.
We are available to meet with you and/or other City staff to preview the enclosed
Planning Application and related plans prior to review by the Planning Commission and
City Council. Please call me at 636-5500 if you would like to arrange a review session
or if you have any other questions concerning the application.
Sincerely,
EVEREST DEVELOPMENT, LTD.
Timothy J. Nelson
• TJN:lc
Enclosures
4111
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW { -
PLANNING APPLICATION t'
J
''''-'163625001•17 ,,,'5 �• fi�k%
• APPLICANT: Everest Development. Ltd. Phone - >,. ''
�r
ADDRESS: 2685, Long Lake Road, Roseville, -MN 55113 „ r� ,: _.
Street Address, City, State, and Z-ip Code s - -r-.; s ,, 4,,,,....-,� �.
.. - .. oat
- $---4",,i'' me 1w7.:%;-,,,,"-41..'
„ i'...y, r ,ry =
• •
BUILDING N - MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK
PLANNING APPLICATION
NARRATIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The following narrative materials and information are
submitted to supplement the plans and Planning Application
submitted August 26, 1994, concerning "Building N" , an
office/industrial facility proposed for construction in '
• Mounds View Business Park. In connection with the proposed
facility, applicant Michael Investments, an Everest
affiliate, is requesting Development/Site Plan approval for
the project, rezoning of the site from I-i and B-3 to
Planned Unit Development (P.U.D. ) , and major subdivision
approval to create one platted lot from four existing legal
parcels.
PROJECT SUMMARY
The proposed Building N project includes a 102, 950 sq. ft.
office/industrial building to be constructed on a 6.89-acre
site in the undeveloped southeast portion of Mounds View
Business Park. The architectural style, building materials,
landscape treatment and intended use of the proposed
facility are consistent with, and are designed to compliment
the existing buildings in the business park.
The new facility will be built by Everest Construction Co. ,
for lease or sale to appropriate office/industrial user(s) .
•
•
DEVELOPMENT TEAM
APPLICANT: Everest Development, Ltd.
PROPERTY OWNER: Michael Investments, a Minnesota General Partnership,
(Everest affiliate)
Sfi± PLANNING AND
ARCHITECTURE: Dovolis, Johnson & Ruggieri, Inc.
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: Dovolis, Johnson &Ruggieri, Inc.
CIVIL ENGINEER: Putnam Consultants, P.A.
SURVEYOR: All-Metro Development Consultants, P.A.
• GENERAL
CONTRACTOR: Everest Construction Company
TAX INCREMENT
CONSULTANT: Casserly, Molzahn & Associates, Inc.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Peterson, Fram & Bergman
•
DEVELOPMENT TEAM CONTACT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Everest Development, Ltd.
2685 Long Lake Road
Roseville, MN 55113
636-5500, Fax 636-0183
Contact: Tim Nelson
PROPERTY OWNER/
SELLER: Michael Investments, c/o The Everest Group
2685 Long Lake Road
Roseville, MN 55113
636-5500, Fax 636-0183
Contact: Tim Nelson
SITE, PLANNING AND
• ARCHI'I'hCTURE: Dovolis, Johnson and Ruggieri, Inc.
1121 East Franklin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55404
871-6009, Fax 871-1746
Contact: Brian Johnson or Scott Nelson
CIVIL ENGINEER: Putnam Consultants, P.A.
7441 Jolly Lane
Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
425-1233, Fax 425-2033
Con .
SURVEYOR: All-Metro Development Consultants, P.A.
7111 West Broadway, Suite 201
Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 •
566-8487, Fax 566-8517
Contact: Tom Veenker
GENERAL
CONTRACTOR: Everest Construction Company
2685 Long Lake Road
Roseville, MN 55113
• 636-5500, Fax 636-1083
Contact: Rick Baker
• TAX INCREMENT
CONSULTANT: Casserly, Molzahn & Associates, Inc.
215 South Eleventh St, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55403
342-2279, Fax 334-3382
Contact: James R. Casserly & Mary Molzahn
LEGAL COUNSEL: Peterson, Fram & Bergman
300 Midwest Federal Building
50 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1197
Contact: Glenn Bergman, Attorney at Law
291-8955, Fax 228-1753
•
•
•
MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK EAST
2ND ADDITION
CURRRENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
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 5 acres of Lot 2 , Block 2 , PINECREST
ADDITION lying east of a line beginning at a point on the
north line of said south 5 acres, said point being 414. 36
feet east of the northwest corner of said south 5 acres;
thence south at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds
right to the south line of said Lot 2, and said line there
terminating.
P.I.N. 08-30-23-44-0002-8
P. I.N. 08-30-23-44-0012-5
P. I.N. 08-30-23-44-0014-1 (portion of)
P. I.N. 08-30-23-41-0009-8 (portion of)
Lega[N(c)
• EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Building N project site consists of approximately 6.89
acres (300, 038 sq. ft. ) of land, with approximately 1, 100
feet of frontage on Program Avenue. The site is bordered by
the Clinch-On Products building to the north, Program Avenue
and Interstate 35W to the east, R. J. Riches Restaurant and
a car wash to the south, and McDonald's Restaurant, the
Mounds View Inn motel and the new C. G. Hill & Sons
industrial building to the west.
The Building N site consists of four separate legal parcels
which are proposed for replatting as one new parcel, i.e.
Lot 1, Block 1, MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK EAST 2ND ADDITION.
The northerly of the two existing parcels are currently
zoned I-1, Light Industrial; the southerly two parcels are
currently zoned B-3 , Highway Commercial.
SITE ACCESS
• Access to the site will be via two new driveways from
Program Avenue at the eastern and southern edges of the
property.
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The proposed 102 , 950 sq. ft. building is situated facing
east/southeast, fronting on Program Avenue, with associated
parking between Program Avenue and the building. The site
is served by 168 parking spaces. The overall parking ratio
for the building is 1. 81 stalls/1, 000 sq. ft. • • . _. ne
usable) .
Site landscaping is to be provided consistent with the
remainder of Mounds View Business Park. The landscaping
includes a variety of evergreen and ornamental species to
provide year round color. Landscaping selections include
Colorado Blue Spruce, Scotch Pine, Norway Spruce, Redmond
and American Linden, Marshall Ash, Red Splendor and
Snowdrift Crab Apple, Norway Maple and Amur Maple.
Site drainage will be directed to catch basins and conveyed
via a piping system to a sedimentation pond to be
• constructed in the southwest area of the site to meet Rice
Creek Watershed District drainage requirements.
Delivery service to the building will be provided via 8 to
16 truck docks (depending on user needs) located in the rear
(west) area of the building. Trash dumpsters will be
maintained inside the building.
The building exterior will be constructed of architectural
masonry block, with painted surface, very similar in
appearance to the Clinch-On Products building adjacent to
the north. The front of the building facing Program Avenue
will include six (6) glazed store-front type entries with
anodized aluminum framing, and matching bands of windows on
two levels. The building height will be approximately 24 to
28 feet.
LAND ALLOCATION AND COVERAGE CALCULATION
SITE AREA: 6.888 acres (300, 038 sq. ft. )
BUILDING AREA: 102 , 950 sq. ft.
• BUILDING TO LAND
COVERAGE: 34 . 3%
PARKING AND DRIVE
AREAS (39%) : 116, 544 sq. ft.
TOTAL HARD SURFACED
AREA OF SITE (73%) : 219,494 sq. ft.
OPEN SPACE AND
GREEN AREA (27%) : 80, 544 sq. ft.
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
The Building N project is proposed for construction
commencing soon after a mutually agreeable Development
Assistance Agreement is reached between the developer and
the Mounds View Economic Development Authority.
!II
LegalN(c)
• MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
DATE: September 16, 1994
SUBJECT: VARIANCE, 2147 PINEWOOD DRIVE
LARRY KLEMZ, PLANNING CASE NO. 396-94
Larry Klemz has made application for a variance to allow a second
driveway access to his property at 2147 Pinewood Drive. The two
driveways are currently both in place on the property.
HISTORY
When built, Mr. Klemz' home consisted of living area and a single
stall garage with driveway oriented towards Pinewood Drive. In the
1960's, the single stall garage was converted into living area.
The owner of the property at that time continued to use the
• driveway as off-street parking area.
In the late 1970's, a two-stall, detached garage was built in the
rear yard of the property. At that time, access to the garage was
only available on one side of the property. Subsequently, an
improved surface was put in to provide a driving surface to the new
garage.
Staff has recently been made aware of this situation and informed
Mr. Klemz that he would need the variance.
The attached application goes into further detail as to the need
- - . - --d -r-i-ance. I h ac p - =. -0 - - - _ • _ --f-or your
information as well.
The applicant has requested that the Commission call to order and
act on the Resolution on Wednesday evening.
S
1
I
1
8290
BLAINE
. 1,
.0
•
,'Nip
Q 8237 �'�]'
to m '7 : ,n '
a .. "5 n n n N
7Q `
N NNN N N N 62
DR
Q a ,1 ,n A .1. n N IO O
N N n n M n n n N1
N N N N N N N N Cl N N Z
•18134 8
:1 1
0 a 812 V
- rn n . n n 01 - n ,n N 01 a
N. <0 V1 N. n N O Q(
i 1 �/,N N N N N N N N N 01104 1 en ry
?OAD ..........................................................................................
...........................................................................................::.:.
O
N N ..
5751
V N N N N 04 N N el
-
fN O 5741g
N 'Alp PARK Mk
•'EENFT0' u1 rn nI 5731 •„•.r �•.
0111 r n N�5 7944 ENFIELDN N N N7947 Grf; NNNNNS7Z1 •_ •_ II{{,,..�� 7943 �( DR 2245 .: •. �.1 17940>7 0`7939 rifNN N N 2241 NI CO O N 5771 ! : 11j 7936 7935 ' f1 C" ®N N N N fV• 223 N'N 5707 i W
.531 79324-1A., `-' N 2200
7931 N , ®• ��� N N N 2233 2 5691
li 7928 7627 cn ®N ®�` 0•
V app C7•C;rt5I7924 ® 5681 •
7923 "c' `(NO 41c� •®�� >��v9) V' n coN .e_I'.
.et I.', ^ f1 N N N N N
7919
giV C ® �\ � N N N N N 5671 rw1�� Fp ,..W 7913 Nn opr � 26, 5661
13 791gtx 7909 n M t '9,1% r� 't COLONIAL VILLAGE W
N N N MOBILE HOME PARK
09 7906 790 R0 _o NN n
OS N s 01 ,i NO1i NN N 10 o O o '01 00 a0 jII n n ,O7� Y, O r en Ia n1 N N NININ IN IN NfN N O N 1 .-
0 0 OI 0 0I 0
01 0 �N N 1N N N N N N N N N N N N N1 N N N N N N N N
N _ _ HILLVIEW RD
Q �' m n c, rn
01 7 I n I N I I O O . O ♦ ,0 = 0 v ,0 ro O ♦ ,0 0 N N. CO 03 N 0 CO 0 N ,O O r• c0 O
0 ,.1 rn n n n n n n 0 m n 0 'n 0 * n N N O O O1 m N. n n N .- •- O 01 01 m n n
N N N N N N N N N
N N N N NN N N N N N N N N N N• N OAKWOOD N N N N N N N N NQ Q Q O
O
OAKW000 DR
PARK
5619 561615619 5618 N N N N N N N r n N N 41 n 01 n 0 ` 5590 n 01 n n Of -- n n u7 n .-
_ N N N N N N N N N ry N N O
�
cn 0,14 1= w M M N
.- O IO
CO CO 1In
n
56725615613 5612 N N N N v•
NwIN O 00
. N N 04 cv 1
41 OAKW00D
N, 0 O DR
5607 560615607 5606 N NIN NIo oY n �25 N N N N N N NN N O Ocll. 17.•
D mf N' ,yD cr0 NO aoON ,QplQvpO
N5601 560d 5601 5600 N
1 nI O n nn ['cc,3' 2 rn 04 NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
5563 5562556 5562 NNNIN1NnNNNNNN Nnn .,
5557 555 555T 5556 N O T w coN N n n Of n N 0/ n n 01 .- n n 1n N 1-
CV
n c n n +
n n N .- .- oII
of rn 0
n
"Ep� N N N N Nm ° JCE N NI N N N NIN N N Nh 5557 5550 55575550 NNN N NN/N. M -_
• NM ` W NN CO ON N N N N NN N �N . 5545 5544i 55451 55441 M •• ONON.5 1n 1n M 04 O 01COQ co
V�WO�D NN
nn as noN � NN
O NCIR 9.. 5539 5538`5539 5538 N N N N C4 04 N �` uhar
�1ZN N N N N N N N NN N N N
N 04 NN
W CO n ,p45. N
L NN NM 95533 5532155331 55322 PINEWOOD DR ig AR
75�N to � a n 01 n Of n n 01 n n u, n
n - n a) n5527 `5265527 5526 Qm N. w ro N ,^ b^ O Of 01 CO n n
03 co 0 pa ^ Qo 0 0• 0_ MM NNN N N 1 N N N N N N N N N N
01 N N N N N 5521 5520 5521 5520 N• N N NN,N N N�NN N /ry
1
RD I
Nn1 NNi n n n ( N1 5511 5512 I 5511
7660 Q N ry N N to to 1 " 5497 5503 C 5504 5505
N 5472 5499 PINEWOOD
343 7658 N I N 5491 5493 5494
5417 7661 5493 5500 SCHOOL 3
GROBERG ST
339 7 7851 5480 5479 5485 5486 5485 M
335 7630 5468 5475 5478 5475
W
125 7628 7641 5468 I 5467 3 5467
in 611 7610 z = 5462 1 5463 A466 5459 (a
595 7594 7631 z N r 5445 �1nrif . O+ SR 5453
381 7580 7531 pp Gil ��S stSO 5447 ;.-
�� o �� a �•S ,rx 5439 n �c el w n �•
565 7564 _
W 7571 5434 call .S ,.'� 5433 N N N N N ry ,- 10
CITY OF MOUNDS VIE' . . . --.
-:LA. r IN€77 r PSC-;::%;? -
• APPLICANT: L 4 W R N C I' W. Ki—a---A4-7.._ Phone 7 0— 578 3
L41vrjL Z676,-'-3(100y
ADDRESS: Z -7 P ' k — di. • ir w Vf=- L \ . nil .
Street Address, City, State, and Zip Code
Interest in Property (check appropriate box):
Owner of Property
❑ Contract for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee, Operator, Manager_
- ❑ Agreement to Purchase
❑ Other (explain)
Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final City action of this request __
PROPERTY INVOLVED:
Address/General Location_ AME AS P BO vi- . LO
OF P�Ui,ur ( .,--r-1:2..i<i=T oN P) NJ F W OD 1,RiV�
Legal Description or Property Identification Number pi N 0 —. c)-Z3-'fif--Go 78
Legal Owner: Name/Address M L 4 APP Li -i,41\17-
PL'f !41 U 44Y F iz4 L C_rzrht-r UNi0l4 4-04_1)S S moz:r-a/ 4,.
Present Use (check appropriate box):
❑ Undeveloped/Vacant .
III ®, • Single Family Dwelling
❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling
❑ Multi-Family (No. of Units )
•
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment
❑ ' Industrial Establishment
• Other (explain)
Property Classification: ❑ Abstract ®, Torrens
REQUEST: `r41�� ""i LVO DF)V=S R iE: 4L.Lo W=D • -11-}.05 1 NkiRt NC
F-11.:'L i L►i i i-? AN iJ 1f1 LLC ;~r tR -rd. Fr-L- 1-4D 1J PrNi.
61--- �.�a=lZl -.t, l,Wrath iferari: v -y. , _.-_ . .-----t.. 1 �s -- iS5 • 1. _ __---SS
*Please note: Applicant may be responsible for additional fees associated with the review of this request.
CSe4 'c
I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE TRUE. � _.1 , /'/C.
Signature �/
Rezoning $200/acre.minimum$200.maximum $1.000 Park Fund Dedication Fee
anance R-1 to R-2-$75,all others $200 Date Paid
on i anal Use Permit R-1 to R-2-$75,all others$200 Receipt Number
Code Appeal $75
Develop./Site Plan Review $100/acre, minimum 100. maximum $500 Total Fees Paid
Minor Subdivision S150 Date Paid �J 9 ,i, a
Major Subdivision $250 Pius $250 deposit Receipt Number 4—(0 / S< '
Comp. Plan Amendment S200
• Wetland Alteration Permit $50 plus deposit determined by Staff Additional Fee Paid
Wetland Buffer Permit 510 Date Paid
Planning Sign $50 . Receipt Number
PUO $350
PUO Amendment $150 Date of final action
3 0 APPROVED 0 DENIED 0 TABLED 0
9 Date '/) -9 4' Planning Case No. — 614 Admin.Account No.
''' ,.li\�v�i
6 7
i r is
pRive iii -a P1EM r`rr D D.i t v�
PtLL. 5 EASoN
T'
2,131 : �= � 7/77o r• rF--
c 1:-
= 2 o Z 1 -7 P i :N w oc`� Co�
Y
-r-
`A siv c R O rr f.
5 ----- 6r,4F-
.T ��
•
5 au j NC '( si.,
rog. -ru.:o rFIU`ES (1-) CTlf
1 D N t t-- CR./Ec4TAT1 c N
Zo-7 S '-t-"R'Rtk DK- 5 i M!i..l iZ. CAS-a.
F. "-.-gUa-s-T CC o N�r j
•-r'o -1-1-1-E 4 4 RP G E we Q Lt Liss E -11-1-E 0 V i L P Ro P i-- i Y
Y �1 `' , oc a T'a 0a c , IDD 17-t c m 14Lz.- T
rv1 A I N EATRY To T E i+0 c S� 'WAS J R i FN TE. To . 'rte.
5e, 0 T wW Es-r- (N' D i LTi N 4 'YA tom.R=b .D R2 V E.) 3 { A
19 7 Su ) L1 , 1 N 'Pg ( 'T L o s E.: c Ems -7-0 M Y
Co Li) lh1 Eft M e' . C 1`;`T P tC>= To i."\-k-E 14-o C S E 131
fiZ' 0 \J Pr L_ c--� 'ft - 'i ArFt - t filoAD P iv `LJo UL1
m A E fl-f E 'FU N c:7---i o 4 A UT1 t--)T [ o F /4 E
• . ' nil Y lL1 l,C'I C PiNt=wicc
b.R,i E 141.1cs V aizap t.L- ' S LI? PORT E AN ! N.b S SC-APE D
-5-FY L..,= C •bR t VF tt..ui .-n4 I N. 5 ` O E M% 'Pg.oPE 2:TNc
I • ' i ' 1 f }r- ; i i—, r/n�' t C F'. ri '/- i 1 ; iN t i 1 V 2 ; 'T-4---/--- s . A 1-,-(-7:'--) n ; i "
410 MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
' DATE: September 16, 1994
SUBJECT: CODE APPEAL, COLONIAL VILLAGE
WILLIAM LIGGETT, PLANNING CASE NO. 391-94
In July, William Liggett, General Partner, Colonial Village Park,
made application for a Code Appeal amending the Municipal Code to
allow the marketing and sale of manufactured homes within an R-5
zone district (which all of the Manufactured home parks currently
are located in) . The Municipal Code currently requires that all
manufactured homes located within the Parks be owner occupied -
this would not allow for the setup of model homes.
Following discussion at the July 20, 1994 Planning Commission
meeting, Staff was asked to contact other cities to see if they
allow the display and sale of Model Homes in their Parks. Staff
• contacted 14 cities and, of those, only three (3) had separate
Manufactured Home Park Zoning Districts. Of those three, two allow
the display and sale of model homes within the Park with the
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The third City does not
allow the sale of homes within the park.
The applicant will be in attendance Wednesday night to further
discuss this request.
I have included all materials received as part of this application
for your review.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW C./9
PLANNING APPLICATION
APPLICANT: W i•/I t a w E . L I C G ETT, G tnr� P'turf Phone 73r-/S6f
MN GENE-RAC 1 R.TNERS N/P
ADDRESS: 14018 MT: 7"C2R4CF.
M/WWEToWKA , M N 553415'
Street Address, City, State, and Zap Code
Interest in Property (check appropriate box):
❑ Owner of Property
❑ Contract for Deed Owner
..essceer•Operator, Manager Proper+1 a"d---ygA—
❑ Agreement to Purchase
(e]- Other (explain) coN•rRAeT zap DE0-0 Pt)RCNA,SER
Documentary evidence of applicant's interest in the property may be required before final City action of this request.
PROPERTY INVOLVED:
Address/General Location por✓g'ccE A-r Zoic RtlsTY4D L ivy Moun/ DSV/EIv mr/. s-swZ
Legal Description or Property Identification Number os- 3o-2 3 -54/ - a c z . -R
DS-3o-z3 -moi •-o o z z-O,
Legal Owner: Name/Address co Lot./ .* 1"t-c 4-< E PAL r42 M N 4 Fni/Er244-,
LJA-R.TNEsZSM-I-P ) !go J $ A-r T T6-A.• , M X1%.1 FTox K A-, nit N SS
Present Use (check appropriate box):
❑ UndevelopedNacant
0 Single Family Dwelling
❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling
p- Multi-Family (No. of Units /1.4 )
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment
❑ Industrial Establishment
❑ Other (explain)
Property Classification: Q' Abstract ❑ Torrens
REQUEST: sec 4.7744. Gred
*Please note: Applicant may be responsible for additional fees associated with the review of this request.
I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ARE TRUE. -��a F z �T`; �.�•
Signature
Rezoning $200/acre,minimum $200.maximum $1,000 Park Fund Dedication Fee
Variance R-1 to R-2-$75,all others S200 Date Paid
C nditional Use Permit R-1 to R-2•$75,all others$200 Receipt Number
ode A e $75
Develop./Site Plan Review SIM/acre,minimum 100,maximum $500 Total Fees Paid
Minor Subdivision $150 Date Paid _ '7-6
Major Subdivision $250 plus $250 deposit Receipt Number
Comp. Plan Amendment' $200
• Wetland Alteration Permit $50 plus deposit determined by Staff Additional Fee Paid
Wetland Buffer Permit $10 Date Paid
Planning Sign $50 Receipt Number
PUD $350
PUD Amendment $150 Date of final action
APPROVED 12 DENIED ❑ TABLED ❑
Date (X -,;. "-'91/9 Planning Case No. 3 G - 94 Admin.Account No. /VA'
Colonial Village Park /Ze./cv
2075 Rustad Lane • Mounds View, MN 55112 (612) 786-349:
4
I . The apol.;_cant requests permission to establish up to
seven '7 ) model manufactured Home sites (density not to
ekceea one ( _ } manufactured home per lot ) within Colonial
:l . T:.e reason for the :e c'uest is so that the duality cf
housing stook within the community can be upgraded.
ogr:aue opportunities occur when there is resident
turnover . or when others rofn outside the park wish to
move into better housing at Colonial Village Park. The
entire community benefits when new homes designed and
built to current standards of U. E. Housing aria at-ban
Development i 1--HUD replace home: built as early as 1969
before the federal standards were adopted July 76 ) .
_on! l Vrag Par .construction began in rate "60
and ooi3:.-,._...ed ;- early .7%) '.2., o_ many bf .,..e homes
remaining in the park now are about _ years old.
. Iew _ es would be fully 'c` � p :i each lot .- Ea
'bJQL't...
be blocked and leve _e`.i to ::i3 i.i.i__ioi n;= ::odes standards.
.
I 0
Ji. ld enclosures oIi tnst a l
4 . The home wcu is be :nar._a ted to remain on the site wilere
they are already installed.
5 . Havng an attrac t_ve new home in the block often inspires
others 1 o ac uire a new home of their own or a: least y_..
UD ✓neiL `J.`.:a_ home. L'eauLy can be contagious. Anotner
factor. hard to . �.r" is that a higher quality ality home
will attract homeowners at h__ner la__ .-hus the J_ y
.._._ ..._ .._ ..a _ _ community :_ _ J ..._ n _ is being .a ____ Y
_•..cc-. _ t... J' ._ .__ e- ✓ a Hem._ ...._ at .,he Emerald Hills
'/ _l__ ae _ :omen_ y. All _ _ ._»..e...J:. _ e - ._ ems. about ✓..._ venture
havebeen - _:I.'_ __me .. yr .
s L e
i
•
•
• . t,-,_.p_ . .
411 MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
DATE: September 16, 1994
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, 2169 MUSTANG DRIVE
CROUSE CARTAGE COMPANY
As discussed at the September 7, 1994 Planning Commission meeting,
the Crouse Cartage Company, an Iowa-based trucking firm, has made
application for a development review for site improvements they
anticipate making at 2169 Mustang Drive. Based on the discussions
held on the 7th, Staff will be preparing a Resolution for
consideration by the Commission for the Wednesday meeting. Please
note that contingencies of approval covering storm water drainage
on the site will be incorporated into the Resolution.
The applicant has requested that the Commission call to order and
act on the Resolution on Wednesday evening.
•