Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-1997 40 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1997 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS:BEFORE SPEAKING,PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Planning Case No.480-97 • 7150 Knollwood Drive Conditional Use Permit for Oversized Garage Applicant: Kenneth Newcombe 5. Planning Case No.481-97 7765 Spring Lake Road • Conditional Use Permit for Oversized Garage Applicant:Noel Barragan 6. Planning Case No.483-97 Moundsview Square Shopping Center Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales of produce Applicant:Menyville Farm Market 7. Planning Case No.484-97 5377 Quincy Street Variance to allow 4 foot encroachment into 30-foot front setback Applicant: Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity 8. Staff Reports/Information Items 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION . MAY 21, 1997 7:00 P.M. AGENDA SESSION AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes April 2, 1997(Regular Meeting) April 2, 1997(Special Agenda Session) April 16, 1997 N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDAIAGENDA5.21 • • ITEM #4 • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: May 21, 1997 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 480-97 Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 1,264 square-foot over-sized garage Petitioner: Kenneth Newcombe Location: 7150 Knollwood Drive PIN No. 07-30-23-312-0034 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential Applicable Regulations: 1104.01. Subd. 4: Accessory buildings detached from principal building shall have a side and rear setback of 5 feet. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in the front setback. • 1106.03. Subd. 1 d: No garage shall exceed 864 square feet except by CUP. 1106.03, Subd. lh: The combined square footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 25% of the rear yard. 1106.04. Subd.6: The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed 1,264 square feet; if the garage square footage is greater than 1,000 square feet, no other accessory building shall be allowed, the garage width cannot exceed 35 feet nor allow for more than three vehicle access. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plan Building Plan Photo Documentation Background: The applicant, Kenneth Newcombe, has applied for a conditional use permit to build a 1,264 square-foot garage on his property located at 7150 Knollwood Drive. The dimensions of this garage will be 39.5 feet by 32 feet with access for two vehicles. The garage as proposed would take up less than 2 percent of the area of the lot. Most of the homes in this area are on large lots • (1+ acres), although the lot adjoining to the south has been subdivided into three smaller parcels. The garage will replace a smaller out-building on the property. Planning Case No.490-97--Oversized Garage Conditional Use Permit Applicant:Kenneth Newcombe,7150 Knollwood Drive May 21, 1997 • Page 2 The applicant converted a small attached garage into living space in 1994, leaving the property without a garage. Presently there are two driveways on the site, one improved to the old garage and the other unimproved that goes to the rear of the property on the north side of the house. City Code, in Section 1121.09 Subd. 5e, states that only one curb-cut shall be allowed per single-family property. Staff asks the Planning Commission for guidance regarding the enforcement of this provision. The attached photo documentation shows the southeast and northeast elevations. Staff has become aware of a nuisance code violation on the Newcombe property, which was verified with a recent site visit. In the rear yard, there is an accumulation of bagged pop cans which are waiting to be recycled. In addition to the cans, there are plastic barrels and pails in the same location. The cans are visible from Woodale Drive to the south. While the property owner would prefer to recycle the cans when the price-per-pound increases, staff suggests that the cans, barrels and pails be removed prior to the granting of this conditional use permit by the City Council. Dimensional Requirements: Required provided Met/Not Met Garage Setbacks* (Front) 110 feet 150 feet Met (Side) 5 feet 8 feet Met (Rear) 5 feet 310 feet Met • Percent of Rear Yard* <25% 2.5% Met Garage Width s 35 feet 32 feet Met Area of all Accessory Buildings: s 1,264 Sq. ft. 1,264 Sq. ft. Met Analysis: Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code states that no garage shall exceed 864 square feet except by conditional use permit. With a CUP, the maximum area for a garage is 1,264 square feet. The garage proposed by the applicant, at 1,264 square feet, meets this requirement Section 1125.01 gives a list of criteria that must be satisfied in order for conditional use permits to be approved. This development appears to satisfy these criteria. Also in Section 1125.01, the Planning Commission is to examine the possible adverse affects of the oversized garage. Using the factors listed in the Code, the proposed use will have little if any adverse impact upon surrounding properties. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 506-97, recommending to City Council approval of a conditional use permit for Kenneth Newcombe, allowing a 1,264 square-foot oversized garage at • 7150 Knollwood Drive, with stipulations. N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\480-97\7150-PC.RPT . MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 506-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OVERSIZED GARAGE FOR KENNETH NEWCOMBE, 7150 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 480-97 WHEREAS, Kenneth Newcombe has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,264 square-foot garage on his property located at 7150 Knollwood Drive, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: LOT 22,KNOLLWOOD PARK, RAMSEY COUNTY WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,264 square feet of garage/accessory building on one lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding • this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Building Plan e. Photo Documentation WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that the dimensional requirements in the Zoning Code have been met: Required Provided Met/Not Met Garage Setbacks* (Front) 110 feet 150 feet Met (Side) 5 feet 8 feet Met (Rear) 5 feet 410 feet Met Percent of Rear Yard* <25% 2.5% Met Garage Width S 35 feet 32 feet Met Area of all Accessory Buildings: S 1,264 Sq. ft. 1,264 Sq. ft. Met WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.: Planning Commission Resolution 506-97 • May 21, 1997 Page 2 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 7150 Knollwood Drive, low-density residential. This proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area The majority of the lots in this area exceed one acre like the subject property although some of the lots fronting nearby Woodale Drive are smaller parcels. While the proposed garage is larger than what is typical for this area, the placement of the garage behind the home hides the bulk of it from Knollwood Drive. The garage would be screened from the neighbors to the south by trees on the subject property. There will be no screening from property owners to the north. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. • Removing the existing accessory building and replacing it with a large, new garage would be a benefit to the area in the sense that it is an improvement to the property. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. The applicant has indicated that they own many vehicles that currently are parked outdside. In addition to vehicles, the applicant would plan on storing a riding lawn mower and other assorted garden and yard equipment within the garage. The size requested is the minimum - • 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b.: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools,streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The construction of an oversized garage will not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it create an increase in traffic on • adjacent streets. The increase in runoff from the larger structure is not significant and will not affect the drainage system. ' Planning Commission Resolution 506-97 • May 21, 1997 Page 3 (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The placement of the garage so that the bulk of the structure is hidden from street view will provide adequate screening, and will preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. The garage will be in full view of the adjoining property to the north. (4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for storage of vehicles and other equipment. Having this garage will allow for the property to be kept in better order and for storage of larger-than-typical equipment. Improving neighborhoods by enclosing stored • items is beneficial to the community and consistent with community goals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building appearance with the dwelling unit. 3. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. 4. No other accessory buildings shall be allowed on this lot. 5. The applicant shall remove accumulations of cans, buckets and barrels from the property prior to City Council approval of this CUP request. . Planning Commission Resolution 506-97 May 21, 1997 1111 Page 4 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 21st day of May, 1997. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\480-97\506-9'7PC.RES • • • r'v ri COI' � d�IFY I ii•'li" if1 fi E; r CO1VLMITNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • l• DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION v, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 6I'°',-PP.ra,40* 612-784-3055 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant i�enn e.77-) )C O rn i2 Telephone 7�-off JOS Address ,, . //S4 f'SNoaptoc.� Dr. Fax %'Dur.-1S V& S S//L • Interest in Property(check appropriate box) • i . Owner of Property ❑ Contact for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase O Other(explain) • Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the • property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. Theag roperty owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. • ViTroa Description/Proposal . p rty nphon/ProQosal Address or General Location 7i-CO 7i-COMNO LL GUDD/o or mounds U pj 5 i i - Legal Description . . Kiva 1 1•-,,v 0/.30 P4 p K, I�A inC Y Lo 7- .4.7. Property Identification#(PIN#) O 7 - 3 0 - Z 3 -• 3 / -("<) 4 - R #of Acres f 4c#FE-i- Current Zoning frf, /:5/7) Present Use - Type of Application ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant 0 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $200 ® Single Family Dwelling ❑ Rezoning $200/ac;min$200 max$1000 ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling 0 Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* ❑ Multi-family Dwellings 0 Minor Subdivision $150 ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ PIanned Unit Development(PUD) $350 ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ PUD Amendment 50 ❑ Other(explain) Conditional Use Permit R-1, • `. others$200 ❑ Variance', R-1,R-2$75;all others$200 ❑ Code Appeal . $75 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $100/ac;min$100 max$500 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit $50+deposit* ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit ? ❑ Floodplain Permit $200 • a Other � O r l �3,� 5 b *see Municipal Code for explanation of deposits d Please complete the reverse side of this application. l City of Mounds View,MN Development Application Page 2 • Property Classification a Abstract ❑ Torrens Description of Proposal z. X''=' G BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY IIOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant K.2,71•4-90:47T.)- • 2 -L,.-e--1‘-'7,./.1-/ Name of Applicant(typed/printed) =,;/A/i,!i1 ice. /'/,=:,\4>c.0 r••••1 p, • Signature of Property Owner Divi la i. Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) f--fr iVeilL;riJ,. ;�/:: ...a,;��C • • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal 1i-/$ - O 7 Date of Acceptance 1-1-14-°1 1 Assigned to: Planning Case No. 4`s•0- q 7 60-day Limit (0-11-61/120-day limit q -11, ci7 Fees Paid: Account# Check# Application: 7 ti o O 105 Park Dedication: Deposits: Sc/9 ,41 Other: 110 Total: COFFICSWPWZAWPDOCSWDMNFORMS1DEVAPP.FOR . • f ' 7385 7380 0_ 7381 7382 7395 7390 ETI N I N1 N 1 NJ. > 732 I 7375 7350 7365 7360 7375 H•DG N - F 7365 �, Hills 1,44 N 7340 7347 7340 7373 - 7350 ��,1. ::;..=:' 7325 fY�.' S ...,4::.....:.:::.}...::.:::.",;.:..,.::.. :.-:: 732C 327 < n 7344 ... ( , , c" 7331 N IR :ar 7338 Arfr rn n N n rn n SI m gfl,1• �EN'. � ono ooN o o n N g � NM m M n R h n , N Ni N N N ;i i N N 7310 • R :. ao N v 'o - o !Ii: o N 2 2 d m v ro m 7295 I({• 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn rn rn rn °o' mes' ®® 5278 527 . n n n n N N N N N N N N N N N 7288 8-� �.� o :: SE" 5272 527 7280 5266 526 .. 5260 5261 Q C D:5178 5177 ®� 34 7237 7250 0 O 5176 5175 LAM 524-Ct LL 7226 7225 72 5174 517:0 524 7200 15 7190E ®� LJ- 7188 719 R-4 51725171 5230 _ 7172 15 7,8� W 555111:7024 170 5169 I: j//� / n n n rn •5168 5167 5221 - rn 1MCI n N o o Z ® 521 N O n cs,N I N Ol 111 N, CO CO CO N I N , CO OJ 5166 5165 n W �;; o n WOO DALE. DR Y 51645163 QY 5206 El s ai ov M 7100 r "' `i ro o El 5 51625161° O 5205 ` :•:•N, rn rn m m m ao m . .111 5200 N N N N N N _ 5'101 • r. O o 7094 W DALE D n 7092 M n n `� 3 070 5 0 5140 7082 0 7095 _r J .7074 2 06. f 5132 5133 7072 7069 y 7063 060 n N n c 4 ESI IME 5125 p 5 7054 705 7044 (..'4 C.1 N NOR 0 c C R EST 22. 7034 om Z w 704pg.""41144W.moqww. WOODCRE57 PARKS 5108 5109 Z 57026 O N 7 . J: N jibe W = 57026 702� Aliiiiho,0.0 m °° �" PF ^ �� 5100 5101N5 N N N N N 7006 701 '� lli ^° i�. 6986 69.1 I 2940 '3 ,�1i 5092 5O91� 5092 N - 5086 5085 0 5086 5085 508 5 6970 Z . .96•� 6960 508' .5 Q 697 71::�i�14 5080 5079 5080 5079 5080�� 6952 N 6953 iall 111 w rn I 6951 5072 5071 5072 5071 �m�mj6942 d 6939N N6945 6940 5066,5065; 50661 5065 CE:506 �- 5060 5059 O 5060) 5059 o•�`505 : ` 6928 6929 �� n n n 505415053 O 5054 5053 505 5. - crr— .� N o o n N - J �.504 1 0 6900 0 I �� N N N N 'Al N N • 5046 5045 504615045 EPS .a� L2 ,. • --- —H ..- NEW BRIGHTON • 111/ Zoning Map Case No. 480-97 7150 Knollwood Drive . N4 Applicant: Kenneth Newcombe -- - - !/o, / 4 l/► • .q j.' i. ?Lor PLR&/ N ' 'I PROP0 eO GAQACre SC,+9L.� 3/L ��-U I. �bID,, Q / /413 / � � / 1 M •0 / 11--!.2" / ex's ; 400 l ' r \ / l ' v, / / f 1 N E i • /....,,SFO I _ I1ti Ea 40-4! R �l:R6 .. / \ -7l S O kivoLLWooD D,2. i • 2 • sIto • v)PI �V' �t-36r, -r s CS ?-4J' D.C. /VS/ 32. I....c, i. "o .5 Dr N,',- 1/ g /Y 4NC.No4. Bol. !i'-o„0,G, p 51,I6'r1 LI inJ/�. IV r 16 04”eg,k. - 4n Com. W,wt PC - 11" _'/ 2-4t-45 Rri2oO co4vr: \s„4_, � - r- SX-e-r SeAt.- 7¢r'--/r D,, . �r } C23 __ /G'a'' Xgrdu p,N. 1)Q. TI i 1 I' I 1; 1 1 • il' - - - - - 1 I- 1, a M - / N M Asa U T Posep G £ � RRA& t.00[Z PLA-Q ScAt,E 4" +1 1 o" l' • I ;1_ I . • 1 - 1 ii C-2 3 I /6 !_0_X ey_o" Oil/ D/'_ i • Photo Documentation of 7150 Knollwood Drive Planning Case No.: 480-97 Oversizerd Garage CUP Kenneth Newcombe, Applicant May 8, 1997 '• ' 7-L,,,p,,- yvy} 1,,..4, .1 R...d s-,,„..n".; r.nriJ - .,.... .- -'33 •A t •ate' ' '' _ . 7r� ..3 ih'p 71 • 1 ' ', 'i ,,,ssem�] w r b", ,„,..• / � +t Y 1,1,11-.,, *5, tct.tail ty t+, r 1 i' „) 1t+ 1 r s'�,+ ,V ���1. s�ii ! a.,u ! a 11� fly/�'14 :f I , � '- J '1.G t+y. 41, � 'd1. i r � s'.: fyyfJs �, ,�I�'y.j 1j .rt �.R • ' 176 .4 t ' /. •- h " '"1 ,� rd ,y7..�zs,. . . •i ,y h " Ir6d4k `Pr + K $'° ,,,...,,.--a,,: h Si { e4iY • 444,, . rhe e+ C'.; r1„ Z `r-'ii:� ? ? ' ,-.,..r.-A+:� ',.na� + -A,,,, '�r✓. KS. • - ...fir-:-t ..<,.�.a .,_3 .,r�t -... + _.scc , --- _, -- -.. Above: northeast elevation Below: southeast elevation 1,f -: .- r--)-1--- -i.,. :,,,'--7,',:.--X ;. 5 Y• /T,, .. _:-, + -+a. _E, • • • 1 = =� ty A t . ` - ; 1 1d - � a. fir. e ' r i .. . vr '+.t,+s .. ..° 's4z -a ';• •'-1' •? r v•F-=s . .. ..1w � . ` X' ' �. . cmof i"s r sc..cci. 6'. ,i,-,, i-{ .-x; - A.T • ITEM #5 • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: May 21, 1997 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 481-97 Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 1,180 square-foot over-sized garage . Petitioner: Noel Barragan Location: 7765 Spring Lake Road PIN No. 06-30-23-33-0007 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential; property improved with single family home Applicable Regulations: 1104.01. Subd. 4: Accessory buildings detached from principal building shall have a side and rear • setback of 5 feet. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in the front setback. 1106.03. Subd. Id: No garage shall exceed 864 square feet except by CUP. 1106.03. Subd. lh: The combined square footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 25% of the rear yard. 1106.04. Subd.6: The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed 1,264 square feet; if the garage square footage is greater than 1,000 square feet, no other accessory building shall be allowed, the garage width cannot exceed 35 feet nor allow for more than three vehicle access. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plan Building Plan Photo Documentation Background: The applicant,Noel Barragan, has applied for a conditional use permit to build a 1,180 square- foot garage on her property located at 7765 Spring Lake Road. The dimensions of this garage will be 36 feet by 32 feet with access for three vehicles. The garage as proposed would take up 7.1 percent of the area of the lot, not including that part of the lot that extends through the road • and into Spring Lake. The garage would take up 16.6 percent of the rear yard. Most of the homes in the area are on lots having greater usable lot area than the subject property. The garage will replace a small shed in the rear yard. Planning Case No.481-97--Oversized Garage Conditional Use Pennit Applicant:Noel Barragan,7765 Spring Lake Road May 21, 1997 Page 2 , A two-car attached garage is currently being converted into living space leaving the property owners without a garage. Included with this report is photo documentation showing the front elevation of the home and the proposed location of the garage in the rear yard. Dimensional Requirements: Required Provided Met/Not Met Garage Setbacks* (Front) 85 feet 149 feet Met (Side) 5 feet 5 feet Met (Rear) 5 feet 15 feet Met Percent of Rear Yard* <25% 16.6 % Met Garage Width s 35 feet 32 feet Met Area of all Accessory Buildings: s 1,264 Sq. ft. 1,180 Sq. ft. Met Analysis: Section 1106.04 of the Zoning Code states that no garage shall exceed 864 square feet except by conditional use permit. With a CUP, the maximum area for a garage is 1,264 square feet. The • garage proposed by the applicant, at 1,180 square feet, is within this guideline. Section 1125.01 gives a list of criteria that must be satisfied in order for conditional use permits to be approved. This development appears to satisfy all of the criteria with the possible exception of number 2, which states that the use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residential properties. The garage, which will be screened from the property to the north by a privacy fence and a grade separation, will be in full view of the properties to the east and south. The absence of screening notwithstanding, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed oversized garage should have little adverse impact upon the community including those properties immediately adjacent to the subject property. Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 507-97, recommending to City Council approval of a conditional use permit for Noel Barragan, allowing a 1,180 square-foot oversized garage at 7765 Spring Lake Road, with stipulations. N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\481-97\7765-PC.RPT a • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 507-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OVERSIZED GARAGE FOR NOEL BARRAGAN, 7765 SPRING LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 481-97 WHEREAS, Noel Barragan has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,180 square-foot garage on her property located at 7765 Spring Lake Road, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as followed: SUBJ TO ROAD AND EXCEPT NO 25 FT AND EXCEPT SO 378 FT OFLOT 24, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 89 WHEREAS, The Mounds View Zoning Code allows, with a conditional use permit, up to 1,264 square feet of garage/accessory building on one lot; and • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a. Planning Application b. Zoning Map c. Site Plan d. Building Plan e. Photo Documentation WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that the dimensional requirements in the Zoning Code have been met: Required Provided Met/Not Met Garage Setbacks* (Front) 85 feet 149 feet Met (Side) 5 feet 5 feet Met (Rear) 5 feet 15 feet Met Percent of Rear Yard* <25% 16.6 % Met Garage Width s 35 feet 32 feet Met Area of all Accessory Buildings: s 1,264 Sq. ft. 1,180 Sq. ft. Met • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been considered in its recommendation, as required by Section 1125.01 Subd. 1.e.: Planning Commission Resolution 507-97 . May 21, 1997 Page 2 1. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 7765 Spring Lake Road, as low-density residential. The proposal to build a garage of this size does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Geographical Area Involved. 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area The majority of the lots in this area are larger than the subject property although the lots behind the subject property fronting Knollwood Drive are much smaller. While the proposed garage is larger than what is typical for this area, the placement of the garage behind the home hides the bulk of it from Spring Lake Road. It will, however, be visible from the properties to the east and south. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The applicant will be removing an existing accessory building and replacing it with a large, • new garage which would be a benefit to the area in the sense that it is an improvement to the property. 5. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use. Due to the conversion of the former garage into living space, the applicant no longer has a garage. The proposed three-car garage will meet the Barragan's vehicle and storage needs. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the criteria (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools,streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The construction of an oversized garage will not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor will it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. The increase in runoff from the larger structure is not significant and will not affect the drainage system. • (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and Planning Commission Resolution 507-97 • May 21, 1997 Page 3 there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The placement of the garage so that the bulk of the structure is hidden from street view will provide adequate screening, and will preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. The garage will be screened from the neighboring property to the north by a privacy fence and a change of elevation. The properties to the east and south, however, would have no such screening. (4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for storage of vehicles and other equipment. Having this garage will allow for the property to be kept in better order and for storage of larger-than-typical equipment. Improving neighborhoods by enclosing stored • items is beneficial to the community and consistent with community goals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The conditional use permit be recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval, and a receipt of such recording shall be provided to the City of Mounds View. 2. The garage shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform building appearance with the dwelling unit. 3. The garage shall not be used for living space or other uses not allowed by the district in which it is located or by the Zoning Code. Should the use change for which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit shall become null and void. 4. No other accessory buildings shall be allowed on this lot. Planning Commission Resolution 507-97 • May 21, 1997 Page 4 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 5th day of March, 1997. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (SEAL) • N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\481-971507-97PC.RES ri [flfl ©Rir ORItirfn COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 Parn+`n '0 612-784-3055 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form •Applicant Information Name of Applicant [)`,Q- ' ,do t L 16 A.e,2,4 c'4 4.i Telephone 71--47- Address 1' -Address 7 7 Cv S �,�z,AJ GS LK ,2) Fax 7 "i - CO3 2-7$J MauNL 41d -s//L Interest in Property(check appropriate paate box) Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase O Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The Ash property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. MP Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location 7 7 Co S,OZ'm14 1-K 4 ) Legal Description SN;6J ;-a /D. Gf ' AJ 26—F T ' k S 3 JA F r LOT 2-4.1 Property Identification#(PIN#) b(Q 3 0Z 3 3 at," 7 #of Acres , 5 Current Zoning 4-I Present Use Type of Application ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant a Comprehensive Plan Amendment $200 Single Family Dwelling 0 Rezoning $200/ac;min$200 max$1000 ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling 0 Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* ❑ Multi-family Dwellings 0 Minor Subdivision $150 ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Planned Unit Development(PUD) $350 ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ PUD Amendment $150 ❑ Other(explain) X Conditional Use Permit R-1,R-2$75;all others$200 ❑ Variance R-1,R-2$75;all others$200 ❑ Code Appeal $75 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $100/ac;min$100 max$500 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit $50+deposit* ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit 7 O Floodplain Permit $200 �k ❑ Other J • *see Municipal Code for explanation of deposits Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN Development Application Page 2 • Property Classification X Abstract 0 Torrens Description of Proposal /ti: c .€4 AS t S cq Fo o-r 4-(e o r ip e r-04-4)4� ,) A le 14‹61- FL 1 S CO —2- iZ er( rte Civ6,2€Are of 329 r rai BY MY(OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURA Signature of Applicant Qti� G Name of Applicant(typed/printed) ,4 D L. . £ A- 2 Q 4,c./ • Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) d/' L _ R 4,Q -‘../ • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal 97 Date of Acceptance 7 Assigned to: <Y Planning Case No. - q? 60-day Limit (, - .o *) 120-day limit - 19 - ; 7 Fees Paid: Account# Check Application: '7_5 (,bh L, ,j SO O a Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: • Total: CMFFICEIWPWWWPDOCS1ADMINIFORMSMEVAPP.FOR 1/97 - — 8046.t N.\• �y B-3 R—O 8030 8045 _8036 8045 8040 8025 8039 19 8020 8025 8026 8028 Y • lu9 • 8016 8015 0¢ 8025 z II \\\ - 8005 8000'4 Boos 6016 8009 AO I i 7990-=7985 8004 7981 a I 1 B-3 7980 h 7975 7970 7979 41 I 7960 7965 7960 7959 N � N � D N m 7950 7955 7956 7949 W N N 7934 7933 1 4 7950 . 1 0 NI? y� 7932 � � K-4p n rn C../ I-— —•—— — 7897 CO N iliV Irk �t� N N N 7900 7901 .w.u."I a. �� HILLS F-y 0 7830 7835 7890 7887 1: n ,'� "� 7820' 7825 7880 7879 X11? EEO ,•, co o D� F 7815 7870 7865 c 7860 N o 8-2 • 0 :• 7860 7851 c a 7850 7821 E! AN 7850 7841 7801 `` ti IR a,' Y o,p,.••• •- :. 7791 3 R-4 4:- :' n.77a1 '::;.`•". � w 7750 reR 7775 mar 7770 • ^� E E ::.:: ::. ::.::•:�:; :..• 'T�� 7748 Er:i; 1121111111111 t Z t...::„.:.`,` .:.F.- .,.,r:;i ??:�'yi:... • r 55 ME=� 7729 ................. ........ 772= �� 7723 :> • 771= ::•: :i:{::ilii'•zia�� ':.}�.::: • ..` .'.� . � . � o'771 E. �' 7710 •• 7710 7711 Ni 771# 7585 7692 Rs ozg:o f `;:'_ ; a 7690 PUD r::::::::�::� :: .......:• m 7685 7685 N 7680 p 7669 7670 7663 768E I n n co co MOW /< 7675 7670 768•; Y 766L� 7665 7660 S n �0i 0 7655 7666 7647 7644 7653 e n • 7630 7633 7664 7629 7634 7635 `� II 76247614 7629 7620 7625 7620 w 7611 7604 7627 7600 7619 7600 7601 SILVER 1 0 7584 7581 7500 7579 7588 17575 n7585 7594 I I” . VIEW 7581 1I 7555 7564 7565 8 7565 758 0 7565 PARK 1 7555 755 3 7555 7572 g` R-2 w' • 7545 7546 W 7555 7,52 I 7545 75502 7545 7560 : 7550' Ii n 7525 7538 W 7546 Y 7515 7545 7542 PF I ai ro YQ n 7540 • 1 , n •,i :97,. 2 J 7501 N N 7500 N I N m N I ,n N 7523 7532 BRONSON DRIVE 7522 I s. 7522 I o 0 N 0 p 7474 7489 N N I 7490 7485 H 7501 n h 2 n M h q m 7465 7474 7471 7474 749.. N N BRONSONN W I 7457 15 7462 454 7456 v opt rt ao ' 12) I I 7447 7445 7445 R-2 7452 7x51 m o� 7444 N N � I. 7425 7430 7435 7434 w 7415 7442 N ZS p 7409 7440 cL -11: VON SDR 7415 L. 7406 7405 7412 7408 73903 o v 740 j 0 7405 ^ n n, Zoning Map Case No. 481-97 1 7765 Spring Lake Road N 4 Applicant: Noel Barragan — , . .. r .10% -a, / rt.!' *'r3 At+.(07 inure aNe..4 4 1..)1ic.e 4 .S . ! 1 ' • I I 5 fZc fo • I Zz'%..4: • 1 -7--- ---- I t4. I / Ow—) 9Gtivts 1 I .. ._._ . ... _.__ _ _(...-- I I r } 1 M a u0 \• i E.0 4,3 it • **vim t. faoti4i 6 4 0 (140,4 ii N I 1 • I 1. I .. l'*\ . (oft,(1,41‘ ) • / 900/021'0 t ),' . IN I • j i t-w .- • a ) O 41) iii h ti x I' t . `t+" '1 •M \ i: \ 1; 10 A � Z o � to v .*4 I, I. ai\� �n .t . •i & h ."-• -,•' 4 d k 4 v � � II?) e 4 co al 1 tk, 4. C ' ...a 'M cz4Q 4) IN -4. ,k 0 0. V l O ti VI --_, 01 0 4 r .x to • • Photo Documentation of 7765 Spring Lake Road Planning Case No. 481-97 Oversized Garage CUP Noel Barragan,Applicant May 9, 1997 r ' f war v�g. � 9 .:,:..,....,• •.: %jam kS �"rtl -n ! < t 6 y Sd: f 3Tr : k a ...�• '•.: . >'sF >f 5G' •;� • •• .� y y €"' f.zl • Above: Front elevation of 7765 Spring Lake Road Below: Location in rear yard proposed for garage(shed to be re moved). •gL lX� l sr } .. ' 1'Ky f : , ffx Yi lif ' is r 4� ,- /.�j�ys ,. ° her �� R M��->C.....�.—..,, i;. .:.w. Ifg < ,411 ''^' bf ' '.1 '10.. d41 3r •y r c'r ~ y � ot -..::.i.:,,,., • ITEM #6 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION • Meeting Date: May 21, 1997 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 483-97 Request: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate outdoor sales of produce at Moundsview Square. Applicant: Kirk Olson, representing Merryville Farm Market Location: Moundsview Square Shopping Center parking lot PIN No. 07-30-23-11- 0079 Zoning/Land Use: R-4, Regional Business District; Moundsview Square Shopping Center Applicable Regulations: Section 1125.01, Subd. le, states that the Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use, based upon the following factors: 1. Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan. • 2. The geographical area involved. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 4. The character of the surrounding area. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. Section 1125.01, Subd. lg, states that the Planning Commission shall make findings of fact and recommend such actions or conditions relating to the request as it deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and forward such findings to the City Council. Chapter 1115.04, Subd. 2, provides for open or outdoor service, sales and rental as an accessory use including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers or wagons; provided that: a. Outside service, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. b. Outside sales area is fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with 1103.08 (1)through(5) of the Zoning Code. c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of the Code. • • d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. Planning Commission Report Planning Case No. 483-97--Merryville Farm Market CUP • May 21, 1997 Page 2 Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plan Letter from Applicant Letter from Paster Enterprises Photo Documentation Background: Kirk Olson, representing Merryville Farm Market, is requesting a conditional use permit to operate an outdoor produce stand in the parking lot of Moundsview Square Shopping Center from July 1, 1997 to September 21, 1997. The produce stand would be open seven days a week from 10:00 am to 7:00 pm. and would be selling produce home-grown from its farm in Waverly. The stand is a five-sided gazebo-like structure with a canvas roof, and is 14 feet wide at its widest point and 9 feet high at the peak. The stand requires no utility hook-ups. The produce stand was granted a CUP last year for this same location. Staff is not aware of any problems associated with this operation. 1111 Analysis: Mr. Olson has stated that this will be the same operation that was approved last year for this location. No changes have been proposed. The dates of operation for the farm market, if approved as requested, would overlap by 15 days with Linder's Greenhouses, which was granted an outdoor sales CUP until July 15, 1997. Linder's will be dismantling its greenhouse sometime in between June 30 and July 15, so the overlap of operations could be less than the possible 15 days. In the occurrence of an overlap of uses, there should be little impact to parking, as the produce stand would occupy only 110 square feet of the parking lot. Signage for the produce stand will be accomplished with small banners affixed to the gazebo base(as shown on the attached photo) and lettering on the canvas roof(not shown on the photo.) Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 508-97 recommending to the City Council approval of a conditional use permit for Merryville Farm Market to operate an outdoor produce stand at Moundsview Square Shopping Center. N:\data\users\pams\share\devcases\483-97\merry-pc.rptd RESOLUTION NO. 508-97 . CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY MERRYVILLE FARM MARKET, MOUNDSVIEW SQUARE; PLANNING CASE NO. 483-97 WHEREAS, Kirk Olson, representing Merryville Farm Market, has applied for a conditional use permit to conduct open and outdoor sales at Moundsview Square Shopping Center; property zoned B-4, legally described as follows: That Part Lying Northeasterly of the Centerline of State Trunk Highway 10 of NE'/. of NE'4 (Subject to Roads and Highways) in Section 7, Township 30, Range 23 WHEREAS, the Mound View Zoning Code allows open and outdoor sales in the B-4 Regional Business District with the approval of a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: a) Planning Application b) Zoning Map c) Site Plan d) Letter from Applicant e) Letter from Property Owner f) Photo Documentation WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that the criteria for approval in Section 1115.04, Subd. 2 have been met: a. Outdoor service,sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent(30%)of the gross floor area of the principal use. The shopping center contains 102,035 square feet of building area. The applicant proposes to occupy 110 square feet of the parking lot, which is less than 1% of the building square footage on the site. This criterion has been met. b. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with Subdivisions 1103.08(1)through(5)of this Title. The parking lot fronting Highway 10 does not abut any residential properties. The nearest do residential property is Wildwood Manor, an apartment building for senior citizens, which would be well screened from the proposed use by a stand of trees. • Planning Commission Resolution 508-97 May 21, 1997 Page 2 c. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of the Code. The applicant will not have any lighting associated with the produce stand as it will be operating during daylight hours. d. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The applicant is proposing to use an existing parking lot which is surfaced with asphalt. This criterion is met. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the provisions from Section 1125.01(1)e of the Zoning Code regarding possible adverse effects of the proposed use and makes the following findings: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. 111 (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The proposal is for a temporary produce stand in the parking lot of an existing shopping center. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as HC--Highway Commercial. The produce stand is an appropriate use within this designation. The shopping center is surrounded by roadways and the area where the use is to be located is 1,000 feet from the nearest residential property. The sale of produce is a typical seasonal business in a community such as Mounds View and it serves a community need. The short duration of the use will result in little, if any, adverse effect upon the surrounding area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The facility shall be allowed to operate from July 1, 1997, to September 21, 1997. 2. The hours of operation of the facility shall not exceed 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 3. Signage shall be allowed only as affixed to the gazebo base and/or canvas roof. 4. Lighting for the use shall be supplied by existing parking lot standards. Planning Commission Resolution 508-97 May 21, 1997 • Page 3 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 21st day of May, 1997. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson Attest: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (Seal) N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\483-971MERRY-PC.RES O [11flk ' O COMV MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION " j rd 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 oba411-Partueooc'' 612-784-3055 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information N� Name of Applicant t' 1e.ffy v.I rrw Max Let Telephone L('r'(—)S73 Address (,SKI S..-., s c± CT- Fax 51.•0,-.2_v i e,+,-!, (`'ilk S'S)2.6 Interest in Property(check appropriate box) ❑ Owner of Property ❑ Contract for Deed Owner ,g. Lessee,Operator,Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. perty Description/Proposal . Address or General Location [,(•S S . ►-{Iv.}/ 1 'D 2 ( c.v..n� . I. - V1 ov. Sv)2t)J S� le— Legal Description Property Identification#(PIN#) #of Acres Current Zoning Present Use Type of Application scan ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment $200 ❑ Single Family Dwelling ❑ Rezoning $200/ac;min S200 max$1000 ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* ❑ Multi-family Dwellings ❑ Minor Subdivision $150 Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) $350 ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ PUD Amendment $150 ❑ Other(explain) X Conditional Use Permit R-1,R-2$75; others$200 ❑ Variance R-1,R-2 S75;all o . - :. ❑ Code Appeal $75 , ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $100/ac;min$100 max$500 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit $50+deposit* ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit 7 ❑ Floodplain Permit $200 II 0 Other *see Municipal Code for explanation of deposits Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN Development Application Page 2 • Property Classification ❑ Abstract 0 Ton-ens Description of Proposal .i t fI-alvtst5 ;"v--LzeN procuLQ. 0. Ill& friasvic.-) to — 7PM; 74.a1s o. .Neek �t,, ly 1 Setk 2J • BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS ACCURATE. Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant(typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner • Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) • • ***** ********* ************************************* FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal - — .,Z 9 - Q Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. 0-3.3 - 9 7 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account# Check# d a.L Application: c-L Park Dedication: � . 417 Deposits: S 5 i 301. Other: Total: CAOFFICE1WPWWWPDOCS1ADMINNFORMSOEVAPP.FOR 1/97 uuw - 8028 Y 0040 8014 8627 8016 Oa 8025 8018 8011 8000 8022 8019 8030 - 8021 8016 8009 8006 8000 8001 8010 8011 8000 8005 8012 0 8004 7981 7990 7981 7990 �0 7989 7996w 7993 7990 7977 7984 7989 7988 .Ce7970 7979 7980 7969 7980 7979 7980 0 7985 7970 7960 7959 7970 7965 7960 7961 7964 7975 7980 7971 7968 In 7956 w 7949 7954 7959 7966 7969 7950 7951 7954 7940 7945 7946 7927 HILLVIEW 7955 7944 7953 7948 7950 7930 7935 7930 7917 7940 PARK 7945 7934 7931 7930 ,n ,n CO v> n 7901 [ ^ 7900 7900 7901 7900 '9011 �n I [_. I uoi I 7900 v I '� F M N 7900 7901 N N N N N Pr N N N N tri-a'l N N 1 ry HILLVIEW ROAD w Nao VN (D O t0 m N t0 L1��'h N 7686`p 7891 N €43 7880 N 7890 7885 N N El 7869 Nn n.'•. N 6886 7889N N N 7888 • 7876 Z 7885 7866 7867 7870 7869 7858 7854 7851 7860 7865 7853 7878 7875 7868 7869 7860 8-2 7870 7877 7852 w 7870 7861 7854 p �4A > 7863 7842 7850 7855 7846 7841 Z 7857 785C4 7841 7836 3 7845 784C -AO 7830 0 7840 7835 7840 7829 7847 7840 A% 7851 7815 7817 7820 8 7833 7832 7837 783C 1:-3 .. 7820 7815 7790 7800 p 782C 7809 7814 7827 r1- 1.1:1' pry^ i��, 7810 O 7805 7780 7801 7806781578147817 7800 78097770 3 7801 7760 7797 7800 7801 7800o, B-2 cp#Ft-- 7801 _w 7751 7750 7787 7778 7749 775C 780777777768 Y�O 7767 7760 ow7741 7740 77677739 7740 7751 '•`� ,,, � 7761 7750 7731 7730 7753 7748 7729 7730 7741 7740' B-2 7755 7730 7721 7720 7728 7719 7720 Q 77317730 ry6ry7745 7710 7709 771C p 7721 7720 �'nu .L`/E. 7700 N N n .. N, 7701 7700 CID 770 v R �� m � :. PUD ,.1 nn,�n,'�o ii,ou°'i�i 2553 v v v v •' �.O N B-3 - N N N N M (sic,N N 2551 7695 N N N N N up N Ai •N N /� ,n 2549 Z r4 N 2547_JO 7687 -—3 766. R-4 S 8-3 1, 2545 B-4 2541 NIMH:. r4....4 2539 i4.�I 2537 ji 76554 1, i SILVER VIEW *Si.' _ ;. n n, !111111%lrfif\ ry IS n n n n •riii 1 PARK s N * 441.7 Nr N.... x — LMr .7.6.40,O cu t0OB-3 N O O c0 nN n'O'N n$n m$tOD'NN �Y• rLhry� N N N N N N N N N�O1 1c0 OO f0 - sIMO"O'N �..N Y coOO ,11.N...NCs' Inv N1I N N p�N 1�� 0 N N O,p � N Nco PF N yell N �44 m r N •,C r o� '#��0�4 s51 N N R-4 J CITY HALL �O V N N N N N r., N 22 ,O ON .. N.O+� h�� N O O M • .. « .::. N N • �3 • 0 �N X42• :....' {:?.';':`tii:'j - '.i N w N ry 11111:1111 7401 / 742 �O —wm DR 733 • ;� PF 1 0 0, 740 {j, ; _..---� B-1 1111 — 1 Zoning Map Case No. 483-97 Highway 10 -- Moundsview Square N4 Applicant: Merryville Farms l • COUNTY ROAD I 6.700 vP0(1998) • 1 , , iillilllii ! III ! ilillliiil li !lI II ! III IL 1 i HARDEE'S i • 2 I L. N lW LH "rte ,,,•• \,`` 1 i ! I Ii I 8 5N� si5 9 cl_W ::1 o w in SNVOERDRUG 7-1 \ ,, I1 n 25 xu s r 1-O�' _ a N —� •,. - BUDGET LIQUOR i �� 'iii 'T I I I I I A . :!1 �7 9 8 ''/ . I ' 20 1918 1716 15 14 1312111 101 S. '�� I I I : I it , L F \\ ,•�(i ' 21 �. _U—. „_J 7 TANS ON 10 _ I i `v NAILS 6 L ..`\\ \ s'‘‘-;/./ ,;J•; I i�1 1 I l i 1 1 ! I 1 bls1 I I I l l 11111 i6la�f MI NESS A \ N •jf /-- II ilii II 1 I 1 Ie ii• coln�uM l \\ \\ \, ssi/f `\j I I 3 Q N `\ •,'1�1 vnon s 6.N `, Q I < 'i ¢ \ \\' ,•! /. �! III 1 I I ! 6(' MAANO MOVIES Y v,:v Avv� ', \1iI111 1� 11L AMES 2 ,111 Li°I° 1 11111 111 1 \'�, sr \ ,•,l1 z ��v��FP9���� "'. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l ll 11111 Q 0 �ioti� • ••s'l l 4 l I l l 111 1 1 11 i1 11111111 111111 cl- :::: MAP 4y' • \\D s 7- w i ,• 111111111;1111 tlmm 4b gi •, s OP CIRCLE / JA 1%0 ��P" PINES \\+_9 ••• \ I I I !III 35W LEXINGTON \ \ \ ,•,\ I L I I I I I I I I 10 , OS ARDEN 49 \\ N\ ', VIEW ase• E \ \ '• 98 SHOREVIEW 644 \\ \s...ss. 694 ••, I ( 1 - 84 RasEVILLE SCALE IN FEET ��'� �\ I, i SS // 15/W '' I N �•. �v�N i ( �N-/ 0 25 50 1100 200 • Site Plan Case No. 484-97 Moundsview Square Shopping Center _A' 1 )i Applicant: Merryville Farm Market . , PE ale dvertig April 28, 1997 MERRYVILLE FARMS are entitled to run their produce market from July 1, 1997- September 21, 1997. Permission is granted by Paster Enterprises, owners of Moundsview Square Shopping Center. MERRYVILLE FARMS will place their market/stand in the area highlighted on the enclosed site plan. Sincerely, 1111 MQ.IUN;DSVIEW SQARE� / / / / /,. A & C,.., i;6 / / 6/1411.-ti Site%hanie A. Kirch ' r Paster Enterprises g f IIP 2227 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55114-1677 612-646-7901 FAX 612-646-1389 —,0_ !Revak Facet Malckei ___ / .i 4750 25th St. S.W. JERRY UNTIEDT 1 (800) 450-467 "_l � Waverly, MN 55390 KIRK OLSON (612) 484-1573 RE (1 1:16 1 It_ 7 2C;, —;' MAY 01 1997 ice.c ":, _else :ti': ,. .- ..s V ..e_. : '___3 __...;;i ''i. rarer "louI . .,_4" , _., 1„3..a..= o..C4.`_...c :_a«C: .;o„.,iJ':'_-"( .. u2_e or wa - 10Caul= ;.oa i _ .-i 7u +v. , _99r ry Senre= ve.. . We '$' _._d e .,me-grow "^::1.: _... from our tw_-m _.y � Wa ei ''t'\ We era e'er a rid v er St 1 4 e i 95, e e rh, _ �-�` '-,i'1. ,1 rd '1 i ..1 :9r1=.;, t „V __,.�iy ^raV^_ very �ui^C ?i o went rhr•ouah rhe _l'ou'd. `flew _ l3 .,_.c- '...om''^.._s. _O^ and Cw C4i:r^1C=-. Neer . and are willinor '-..c do r.he same in 1997 . 7 have e ..lo .e.a a y2'JO cher .Lo .d_ -ion.. use Uerm__ . Thank _vj �^� r�ar car�yc�r: �o _ 41 „.i/' Cag._._._ .ai .. Olson ,...7 e- ,m---..,: . ...• er ..:closure. Check • , . *I , • 1 ;. • ..---. . _, xi ,. z . • . - _,. r 1..• \ , •et-: r II \ ' 1 •. i 0 ..,t.. ... ,,.. ... Li M..- ' .. ....•-. t '''.44..t. . .. i . 0 C) . i ... . - . . ..........., s, , .- --7----.;,-1 • '-' • - • — ..- ----„..e--.ir- - -T - P /34.k• it.. vt, e f .-osiN.-'1 .. ,... - - ' .....ligt,.,. ,. -T.., • - 4';-%t.•.,,,,• ,--.1:_-•,... ed ,•' 4 Joir • . _ ... . ,"1.6 r di • ,0.,,:.,,,,,,-4,.,.., i. - - . • V I 14 ' i ' 'tit 4 t:41'1" 2:1 • •• i •- .. 'e .. I ,t4' ' ' Ile ti*,,, ,,i....f.„,. 1%,•., • i ' -- .,4•41--pirnr L... . 1 - .. 1.13,f,'A' . •-, ''.-.: - t .451; , 1 - IA --I. f 1.;• 4 1.. 446 '.Of —, - ;,1:4.,. .,, . Vir a - - 4... ... E in ii .. .,„...,..„?..."t a ....,:.?„ _ ' .%•.,' , _,..:II..v....;.., . .1 : ft --1••••' . .. , ,, ,. ....,. . r .. . , . ' ' frl i . - . 4.,.. Cl" - _. "/ . . r \ .... .0 i..., - - .„ _ • • ,• ...:..▪ ..),..• . ••., .,... ,-,,,,-..,..weij-, ...'p r-:t:.t,4 .; •i ' . .44.4_5;;a'.'.-'..1, •.,':;-.• 'iii,:,.=•, • t•,i 1 11111 ' '-- ‘, .-qn•; :,-„,-...f,..,,. i.1. . i ...:,, ,,ri,r : ,:rri...:t..74 . . ..,._ , ' , • - -...;,. , - .,...„..,..,_ , ........ aro•g?"1 '1.414\1) AMP • *11 ! i 4 * ;‘.t‘':•:.•....;.'11.71:14 44' _ n; ..fl .fs " 1.? ... 1111 .- ',---• ''' •,.„,170 .. ..: :... ...,4_,Livi•?d,..ei/.,, • 1 ..,.., _ .. . . ..i.c.c h. , ..-,..f' - IC y '4ftit •1 , • .4'.. ...r , L..........1 'i - .;.s'i 611101/4 i • , . . 1 A.f .• I..:,—..--:', . - ',,y ....: ..„ E,trrt..—; i' -"' •.-1, -A . .. ,..„4,,,.• ), s,-„,,%46.... ".., . A„,..1,•;;P I''4 '-- - .,,a :.).,...,..,. .... ,, ... „..., . ...., „.... , ._- ...,..,, r ••• '.... •'" .,•„.... • ••-- ...- - . • ',.i.c. - - . 1 Elli . - . s-11,. 1 • . . , .41 II' '', i r I • 6 . .. . . _. r......-- .1. • ITEM #7 • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: May 21, 1997 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 484-97 Applicant: Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity Request: The applicant is requesting a 4 foot variance from the 30 foot front setback requirement to allow construction of a covered entryway Location: 5377 Quincy Street PIN No. 08-30-23-13-0064 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential; a single family home is currently under construction on the property • Applicable Regulations: Section 1104.01, Subd. 3., requires a 30 foot front yard setback. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. The following criteria are individually addressed in Planning Commission Resolution 509-97: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective 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. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands,structures or buildings in the same district. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. • Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Planning Case No.484-97 5377 Quincy Street September 18, 1996 • Page 2 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 Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such restrictions and conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of . such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Building Plan Hardship Statement Encroachment Map Background: The applicant is requesting a 4 foot variance to the front yard setback to build a covered entryway on the house currently under construction at 5377 Quincy Street. The property is located in an • established neighborhood consisting of older, single family homes. This lot was created in 1989 as a result of a minor subdivision of 2186 Bronson Street. The property, though conforming to the dimensional requirements for buildable lots, is irregularly shaped in that the parcel is wider than it is deep. With the 30-foot front and rear setbacks, the maximum depth for a home on this lot could be 24 feet. The applicant is utilizing all of this 24 feet and requests an additional 4 feet for the covered entryway. John Hall, the applicant's Associate Construction Manager, has submitted a hardship statement regarding its request. Mr. Hall has stated that the hardship in this caseis that the front and rear setbacks do not allow for any latitude with regards to building location. The types of homes built by the applicant all include covered entryways to provide protection to the residents and guests from the weather. Analysis: The lot in question is irregularly shaped because of the 1989 minor subdivision and does present practical difficulties in locating a house on the lot. The applicant has already begun construction of the home which eliminates the possibility of shifting its location. The covered entryway, if approved, would encroach four feet into the setback. Staff has examined front setbacks on Quincy Street from Bronson Drive south to County Road 1-12 and found that four out of the six homes on the west side of Quincy within this two block range encroach into the 30 foot front • setback. A map has been attached that illustrates this situation. Planning Case No. 484-97 5377 Quincy Street io September 18, 1996 Page 3 Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution 509-97 granting a variance to Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity to allow a four-foot encroachment into the front setback for a covered entryway attached to the house currently under construction at 5377 Quincy Street. N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\484-97\TCH4H-PC.RPT • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 509-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A REDUCTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM 30 FEET TO 26 FEET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED ENTRYWAY AT 5377 QUINCY STREET; PLANNING CASE NO. 484-97 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity to allow a 24 foot front setback where 30 feet is required for the construction of a covered entryway at 5377 Quincy Street; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is legally described as: The South 140 feet of the east 84 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Lambert's Addition, Ramsey County WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated • with this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Building Front Elevation 4. Letter from the Applicant 5. Encroachment Map WHEREAS, the applicant presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission stating that the lot dimensions established as&result-ofan earlier minor subdivision prevent development anywhere on the lot other than the middle 24 feet and that, because of the front and rear setbacks, typical improvements such as porches and covered entryways are not possible on this lot without a certain level of encroachment and allowing for the entryway to be built would not be granting a special privilege; and, WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that porches and decks are a typical improvements in this neighborhood and elsewhere in the R-1 single family residential district; and WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the proposed location of the covered entryway is necessitated by the location of • the house, which has been necessitated by the lot dimensions and setbacks; and, Planning Commission Resolution 509-97 • May 21, 1997 Page 2 WHEREAS, granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that porches and entryways are typical improvements for single family residences; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship in that the residence currently under construction is located 30 feet from the rear property line and 30 feet from the front property line and the applicant has requested a four foot variance to allow the covered entryway; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that the covered entryway will encroach less into the setback than the four homes along Quincy Street that currently encroach into the front yard setback; 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 there is adequate screening and distance between the entryway and adjacent residences. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity for a reduction in the front setback requirement from 30 feet to 26 feet for the construction of a covered entryway at 5377 Quincy Street. Adopted this 21st day of May, 1997 Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director • 04/28/97 15:09 FAX 812 784 3462 CITY OF RVVI 002 I7 D1JThCOMMUNrrY AEV�GOP�IZENT DEPA►RTM�N`T DEVELOPMENT AP'PLICATI+ON • ep 2401 lEghvray 10,Maemds flew MN SS I I2 " 612-784-3055 . . . _ _ --- -- - - 612484-3462-FAX •• - - - Please Type or Print Information-Complete Bods Sides of This Form APpat rinutian t c Name of Applicant !�� S fY f— �Y N7 ry�G Telephone 6,12-33i— &i `4©9O. Fax • 331- 1540 .. . - ."rest mProperty(check appropriate box) .. . . Owner of Property 0 Contract for Deed Owe -- a Lame,Operator,Manager a meat to Purchase a Other(explain) -_ Applicants must provide evidence.of intent is property et the time of application,,and I'you are not the owner of the property,yea mitt provide a letter ofpermissiiea from the owner ging consent to the filing of this application. The property owner ntnst sign this application for if to be accepted- Property cceptedProperty Descriptio(proposal • Address or General Location Legal Description . ;. I • , ' 4 . ICH , 101k ,. Property Identification#cP ofAmea Current Zoning Use It=of Application Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ CoCOMprebenSive pint Amami SZQO a Single Family Dweiling a Rimming 5200/ac;mm$200 max$1000 o DaplexrTwo Family v a . • Tint t:....r.. Digs a /rEttor Subdivision 5150 ,. CBusinessiCaumercial.Establishment . a Maned Unit Development(MD) $350 a Industria' t1 7i a I'QDAmendment SI50 C Ocher(explain) a Coaditiorai Use Permit R-1,R 2$75;all others 5200 Valiance R-1,R 3 alI others$200 o Cede Appeal $75 , - t3 -- Develop RevieveSite Plan $ 00/ac aim 3100 max 3500 a Wetland Alteration Permit S50+dcposic# a Welas:1E1 Buffer Panic 7 a Floodplain Permit S200 G Other 'see Municipal Carle for explanadon of deposits • Please complete the reverse aide of this application. 64/l.'8/61 16:10 NAA. 612 784 3482 CITY Ur' SY 416U3 City of Mounds View,MN Development Application P 2 • .. Property Classiscarion fl Abstract Torres „ Des�iption sof Proposal . , `AA R _I.1 a . Of . A BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DEC ARE THAT,TO THE REST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED LS TRUE AND ACCURATE Vtgasture of Applicant d'"� �i c J O' ' !, 734Zi • - - Name&Appl-cant(typedlp d) �-` n 4L: im j (1.Iy Signature of Property Owner /rOfti.Namc ofPzoperty Owner(typed/print ) L. 1 i�c ,t (t `� • _ - - • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Dane_of_Submittal Date ofAcceprance — _ Assigned to: Plug Case No. t-f7–a 60-davLimit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Atcotmt 4 Cheek Application: ss-)cp.) Park Decked= Other: Toni: • C:1arrFi1WlalIIal APP FOR 1197 n N o o 5511 5512 5511 I n N Hill- N N N • y N o 5505 u-) n ■ 497 5472 5503 5504 5499 PINEWOOD 111 7661 N N OHM 5493 5494 5493 SCHOOL I III 7651 iii 5480 5479 5486 5485 5500lik, to • rn 5474 5473 5475 5478 5475 7641 5468 5467 5467 {- T $ 5486 5462 5463 5459 H 7631 M 5454 5455 � 0�s 5453 � �� 7531 5446 5447 0 ��,t�" % 5447 N4. �' Cr 12 ^i 5440 5441 ate\ 5439 r m val ii v n • 1 ? 7521 :; i 5434 5433 53NNNN N (y �'4 :2: c.4 4 ... i . 7511 5421 5 �{maa U) 5414 �7'� ��. \ N N N® .. ` 7501 5401 5415 5414 Irn; n N ! a n 5406 r 5405 5406 N N N 4 N 5405 �la N N® ;•' Q . B'ONSON DRNEtif a rgm 5394 5395 rn m 721g m 2 n .r x Z N N NI N N N N N N N N 536 2 img 5386 5387� N N N N N N N N N N N N N �� MEM s 536 _ •,� N 5380 5381 U 5380 .80 537 , S35� Alli..- Ell5372 5373 a W am X86 5367 1 MEM r C534: O . 9-3 Isiti esal-5359 5366 535 `'m= 53 . M 5353 n rn n a - o, r' n IR Egan EEEMI 5354 N N N N N N N :9.: �1 ' ail 5344 5345 N N N N N N N N N M igE =ME 53 = _ 5,33 8 LAMBERT AVE '/ 533'. cr 5337 v"i v 1 n n o v iO.c I N 0 1: �� 532: 1 a �' ;O 5331 1 LAMBERT N N I N N N N N N - Z 532 N N N N N N N N N N = 5330 532• 5330 532' S31 *4* 5323 5324 PARK O 5324 532'0�� 531: W_ lii •a ® 5317 • PF =�1 t 5316 531'-530. 5 ® 5309 �--- 5308 F�:•1�U 5308 530 v = 5301 5302 5307 5300 529• 5300 529• 529. Z T • • 529 O O p 5295 ,e n w .- n ,n rn n 1n rn r) 0 2 5294 529' c 529. 84 itimi3F•-529C- N N N N N N N N i N N N N N ^I W - 529• LIG) 5287 N I N N N N N N N 1 N N N N N N N N 52881 528 =ET 525: B- d CO RD H? I ' 9h 1 0 0 '1 PI C•I 4 5275 N N 14.1 �� ^� 5267 ®ti ryya ti"' ( 5263 ! B-3 f 5284 R-4 • R vi PUD 5251 a rnia,r 528• toto IN so 0 5230 a 527• a 5260 5269 y0:• 260 ,• W000ALE DR 5254 259 5250 `c' N o 0 525 S2SO N 5200 • 5205 N } N ;.1- .13 5201 Q 52405249 5240 5249 5240 7.• _•.:•• z 52301 5239 +522330 5239 5230 ti titi0� `,�• Z t:'0 tij 5220 522• Sy2d 5229 522C ro ryry'• a Q 521 lig ct q 521• 521015219 5210 b0 y`7 52001520- 5200 5209' 5200 `.• titi 5150 21 F'.. •1, J / ov N N N N N N N N N N EDGEWOOD titi�ti�� HI JR. HIGH 7 1111 Zoning Map Case No. 484-97 5377 Quincy Street N4 Applicant: Twin Cities Habitat For Humanity • 909.53 EXiHOUSESSING I 4a.5d' 909.73 909.76 i c.) ., / NUNE OFTHE I X N %9�S 140.00 FEET OF LOT 1 to Be s W 908.7 5897 '4S'W °p841 ;14) s200 ♦ } 906.4 ;i 1 1008.6 ( 54 ASH �07f. ► M W : -:. o -"MAPI 4r5"MAPLE `J • �^ 97R.2 * 1"ASH I$ 5"ASAI W lir .� 0g 07.7 og ` 908.2 4. vbsi.1 ��In._ ,qpm {.. ;{ 5 M907.8 r 9 0ASH r�2 tCH eit�1 i W 30 1 i f' CNERR 0 8"ASN 0 6 ,-,1943F° j I a 4X 07.9 w • .,9M ASH {f eci W F X 24.0 30.0 i la 8 11 z5= PROPOSED •••, I 90b.O } >" as i 0 = PARKING ppVE1Mr=I { i , W 9.A8 1 906.3 , r U; il Igo I ei $ ig It9.ASH it z . I 1t. 9°6.‘ 9 .4) 06.7 { f "\,.., I * I, f L i p907.1 24.00 30.03 `�SN AH 906• X907'-' 906.9 ii 1 /sagoe'5o'w 84.0 \ i j t -SUNEOFLOT1 \` iI 66 I I OVERHEAD ELECTRIC 2w 907.99 908.04 rJ gc�' 54. I • -P 908.32 _ - 908.;,; s 1 O . 29.79' ELUTING BINOIMARKS HOUSE Top Nut Hydrant Lambert Avenue and Quincy Street Devotion = 91263 pRe Top Nut Hydrant 8rarnsom Drive and • ,.°' n' Quincy Street Devotion = 901.18 Denotes iron Monument Denotes Wood Stake )00.0 Denotes Existing Devotion Proposed Tcp of Foundation Devotion = 909.0 ~ '00.0) Denotes Proposed Elevation Proposed Parking Sab Devotion = •v-- Denotes Direction of Surface Drainage Proposed Lowest Floor Devotion = 901.0 Ye hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of 1 Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity • "Building Community" May 9, 1997 James Ericson City of Mounds View Planning Commission • 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 5112-1499 Re: Request for Variance Dear Mr. Ericson: We are requesting a Variance for front yard setback at 5377 Quincy St., Mounds View. The request is to allow the construction of a covered front entry on the rambler style house we are building at this address. The dimensions of the covered entry are 14' wide by 4' deep. This covered entry would be open on three sides, with railing and pickets per code requirements or by the city's request. A copy of the elevation of the • house with this covered entry is attached for your review. The hardship we are encountering is that the dimensions of the lot in conjunction with the depth of the house give us no latitude in pulling the house back. The depth of the lot is 84', with the house being 24' deep and the front and rear setbacks are 30' each. The footings and foundation have been set and we are unable to move the house back, if that may be the suggestion of the Commission. Our reason for this request is that as part of decent, affordable housing, we feel it is necessary to have a covered entry, especially the main entry, that will provide protection from the weather for the family and their guests. All of our house designs have protection over the main entry and would like to be consistent with this home owner in providing a design that has a covered entry. Your letter and enclosures dated February 4, 1997 to Bill Powell have been reviewed and noted prior to this request. We appreciate your time in looking at this request and ask that you look in favor of this Request for Variance. Respectfully Submitted, John Hall • Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity/Associate Construction Manager 3001 Fourth Street S.E. • Minneapolis, MN 55414 • (612)331-4090 • (612)331-1540 Fax ® CO 1-312 L. • -.0333*L3 �,- n31 H ran C m / , 3� LI / 00Dn>Ira>6 u0: /j • ane3u«6./ jj . ❑ . 8 - m - 20 .. , - E. —27 a „? • i• ___F — ste •• m F, . ran v • Lt a 831 C947 y 5 LIi m r / eh' *-' j1.101 /E. pu 11110 C75'l+,4'3 C757 D Zo a ;Iran EiEl /y. Subject Property 0 2 - ri co raw IZII E3C1231.1.63 57 050 3 - 2 0 1, 3413823144064 m 401..0 19 w34e31301316 N ...m gD Cildi Numbers in circles represent bung setbacks `"'°' 1s from property line fronting Quincy Street. ® m 0I Properties on east side of Quincy all have --'( ) _ ❑ 17 front setbacks of 30 feet. N 3uillraU (751 C75'7 2.721 Cle'S9 --- • Encroachment Map Case No. 484-97 5377 Quincy Street N4 Applicant: Twin Cities Habitat For Humanity . . 0 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting .April 2, 1997 MoundsView City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mcitnds VOW, MN 55112 ,:i.g, (Held at the Bel Rae Community Centenl$3,A. dgewood Drive) 4,..: .i.E.V...b. *.k:111111111%. 1. Call to Order .:ii!.ii.ii1-:." •.::::i:v -::::::m..:iiiiiiiimino). • —",,,:......,,,Qi, . The meeting was called to order by Chair Petifitirt at 7.00 p.m. .::.:.1..stm...}.•...zisw:?..m 2. Roll Call • 'AV 410EWa*AN. Members present: Commissioners BrookwWQhnston;''ObeileMiller, Brasaemle, Stevenson and Chair Peterson. ..gowasui'se:.%, ,:i.,:i.:i...:::, V.' AP' tioir Also Present: Community Devek)pment DimctorS: i.. Planning Associate Ericson, Council Liaison Koopnerstveipod Rp ecatti gpSecretary Benesch. . III ...::::,. ...R :.:::...v .A.V ..m. Mr Aiw .4o, 3. Approval of Minutes March 5, 197 AN „ig.::.db.,iff eiddiMRP Motion/SBrasaeltieetOks to approve the minutes of March 5, 1997. s -1412111.N, ‘':1111.6111.\, Motion Carded:?*ps, 0 riliallel,. ,::::::::::Ii::::::R:.N.5.:::::::::1§„•,,. 4. CitizerrRequests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda ••••••.....- .................,.......,,.............. ..:•:::*.v> vax,....,......,....:.... 5.,.4":;:;*;" Pfere-vvererctzonsTreci:H .- . . - • - floor. : :::::::::::i•:::::::::::::::::::V , ..,„ „....„ iN. V :::.:•:•:•:::, WOW to Minutes Page Rirtugatv_casp472-97, Conditional Use Permit for Spot's Quick Lube, N297544igiaVey 10 2 MMSE:Vgal:::i•W Plannavvase No. 477-97, Rezoning for D. W. Jones, Inc. for a Planned Unit Development, Silver Lake Road & Highway 10 4 III Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 S Regular Meeting Page 2 5. Planning Case No. 472-97 2975 Highway 10 Applicant: Spots Quick Lube Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a car maintenanceei ty "Mr ANINEN The applicant, Ron Ostrander General Mana r of Spot's`< uick'ube waa.s .•'d22`;� :�k2vis' -YH.k::`2't{.{::;:c;5•:0:.2�22:'t,,,` present. PlanningAssociate Ericson informed the CommI i�e�-.fie>that the applicant has provided Staff with an updated site/drainage/1. gn plan since their last meeting. He added that the applicant brought in art they're sed lighting plan that day that addresses a couple of concern :that,Staff h -.1iiiitatricson distributed to the Planning Commission a copy of a: ric analys€ <tie site and briefly •1?tiS ~ discussed the revisions to the Platt 4 Mr. Ericson thoroughly reviewed the StaffRepot trig April 2, 1997, regarding this item. He noted that the City rester.had made me changes to the landscape • plan. ti` ANS Alr ogr Mr. F "cson informAtlif Commi. tStaff is recommending approval of Re con No.,: ff:ih th stipul` ` Comiier Jot ; ced for clarification on the lighting that is proposed. Direct( < `on offere€IN:background regarding the lighting and explained what tt = ently rs. She explained that some of the photometric re tn > €gs'`the r r k;,,;.a iving'are a little high near the property line and suggested ;:het the applic rye 'renumbers using tile-heights is and wattages that Staff had :>ii `suggested. Commissioner Miller asked if there were restrictions as to when the ~ lights had to be.ttmed off on the site. Director Sheldon did not recall that there And were any conditions in the resolution but that it could be added. Director Sheldon > ' < indicated thato main concern was wattage and spillage of lighting into the 111§BmpiderAllOreas. ,milaf.i:RiartzOstrander explained that they decided to go to the higher wattage lighting because Mr. Ericson had initially asked that they reduce the number of light standards. Mr. Ostrander indicated that he would run the numbers again if necessary. He added that he has been dealing with a couple of lighting designers on this issue to find a way to avoid spillage into the street and avoid offending any • neighbors. • Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 2, 1997 Page 3 Commissioner Brasaemle requested that the lighting plan be clarified since it did not coincide with the description that Mr. Ostrander was giving. Mr. Ostrander explained that he had just came from the lighting designer and had npfpad a chance to review the plan. He explained that the light pole Okt Commissioner Brasaemle was referring to is intended to be a 40Q watt bygloup: 000 watt bulb as indicated on the plan. Mr. Ostrander requesA, at the near Highway ° 10 be left illuminated at all times. He also asKtijkliat the b*R:044.14pis buildinge be allowed to stay lit for security punDose. Hotihdicatedc.ft4040*Hoy would be turned off when the business is cic .4. auma' INNS, '4* Commissioner Miller asked about the directiOnAggiN and Mr. Ostrander indicated that these signs will not be lit. 400.110 ...„ • ARNAPk. Commissioner Brooks asked what typp4.9fouto repa04:9110,would be taking place. Mr. Ostrander indicated thattigigipe no attkrair, only auto maintenance such as oil changeskiofittniSinkices31416d exchanges, wiper blade changes, etc Commissioner Joh:Ost4it 009tipir tools would be used. Mr. Ostrander indicated that they may ,bOrdoinditiltiptions on an infrequent • basis, possibly three to foyedations.4May. Commissioner Miller asked what arrangements have beerArtre to get rid of the fluid from the fluid exchanges. Mr. Ostrander explained thOre has qatiracted.::yo Scrap Busters who will recycle the fluidsHe explainn,thWthe useAlOggrabe piped into a tank approved by the Er*Ornental p4.001A AgencylkWould be recycled. Commissioner Obert ti.000.11An oil fi1ter*I1Or would used. Mr. Ostrander explained that he wOvt's • prefernot te*.,..1. :.1„,pwn filters if possible. '41111%,,, 111101016114 Henpkgp0e0.*2 9 Lake Court Circle, asked where Spot's Quick Lube will bellbtatealtia:SAplained that it will be the old Auto Central site. Mr. Ruggles .,:Orought-up- e--6.moscouffler shop acro - -- . a - . • -• • Atthat the demog* *study done by CITCO did not even put Texaco in the same Anir category as far* competition because Texaco's primary function is muffler Ala changes with quick lube as a secondary use. ORM*1141.4100980 Fairchild Avenue, expressed his concern with the architectural Intii*atfe proposed building and its "70's-type" look. Cathy Bennett, Economic -"m4Development Director, addressed the Planning Commission and explained that one of the things that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) is trying to accomplish with the corridor study of Highway 10 is to tie in design standards to develop a character for the corridor. She informed them that this study will be • discussed at the April 7th City Council meeting. Chair Peterson explained to Mr. Miller that the Planning Commission presently does not get involved with Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 4 building characteristics partly because there are no standards that apply to the City as a whole. Mr. Ostrander clarified that CITGO did perform a study which indicated that the look of the proposed building is appealing to the,, blic. Commissioner Johnston read an excerpt from the Moun&VieyticCOde regarding the criteria for approval of B-3, minor Auto molt faifities, and how they pertain to architectural appearance. Cha terso` that property 0Y owners have certain rights to build in certain oned districts>;L e t tinued by. by saying that this property is zoned B-3 which`Wlows the rrent*OpeL C rr Peterson asked Mr. Ericson if there were any outsta ing issues*O Mr. Ericson explained that in addition to the liglh sue, the revised ( cape plan must be addressed and easement docUttli* `st be prepared. .4:i '•}YY'.2t2:•.•`. 't't;'t't`.i't't.2.,, Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brooks to approve Resolution`s `. 7 with conditions as Pp N . ��: discussed by the Planning Commission. :<;;< >«_ The needed revisions of the lan,. . pindiageitintingv Are briefly discussed. Chair Peterson explained to.#10}audience tion taken by the Planning Commission that evening was'a •reco_r nendat on to the City Council and that various minor details couldworked out pric to Council action. 0 Ar Commissioner Obertcpressedtat he, W the applicant should be allowed to e wall a.: a rear , "`�`` `uUdin on all night and it was decided that kee4'�h p c� � '�� ���• 9 9 a>�'>`>' on wou' >" ed that'' ates the overhead lighting must be turned off: <which1" ' t turning off any other lighting would be up to the disC4tailZilthe apph >.. Motion Cart„ :a .s „nays 1V` Chair Peterson inforr •applicant that the next step would be City Council action on.` riI 14th. k ` ank Off:;." ,x:K Agoe dA MI Ca ,eNo. 477-97 S °i > 6ad and Highway 10 Applicant D.W. Jones, Inc. Request for a Rezoning from B-2 to Planned Unit Development to allow a gas station with fast food and car wash components; restaurant; senior housing complex; and office building. • • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 5 The applicant, D.W. Jones, Inc, was represented at the meeting. Planning Associate Ericson reviewed the Staff Report dated April 2. 997, regarding this request. He explained that the request consists o !motor fuel station with a fast food and car wash component,restaurtx} or housing complex, and an office building. Mr. Ericson re ded thealet ssion that the , applicant, at their last meeting, provided a WO/Tact report, �, _ke :, nd traffic traffiqe.r analyses and that the Commission had expressed sorpp one of ::he ga station and car wash components of the pr e �t nding that the did> of need any more of these types of uses. He dd 4 'at he has receive number of letters from residents bearing the same se` nej' e distributed a map showing all of the gas stations and car wasOTIOORIUthin the City (7 car washes, 6 gas stations). He indicated that this us4ligimslent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent a Highway1O rea 9, Study. He explained that one of the unresolved k€; hetherrortot there is "too much" proposed for this piece of propert He it ; "„that t `applicant is asking that the PlanningCommission take�`'`�tion thise\{{isti�i+j2`:i'I ardin this request if possible. Chair Peterson requestedzYU t a mr ,ttange be made to the map of • car washes. He pointed:oe: :that Sa wn shout `be added to the map. Commissioner Steve ri1'beliexthat the are at least 400 car washes a month at the Saturn D. ership. ce tbjs4.s a significant amount of water usa for the Cit.;�j iso bellAwkt bald be added to the list. 4r� .4e,,„ ,;,:�:.�z.4 -sones ,�:�.�,,,:tea: C` t,Devef`".` �`'` .t •,erector Sheldon explained that the applicant is reque t::•'.tth ?t this r'•`•'"OImpve forward. Director Sheldon explained that Staff felt thet au d °prep` solution because they did not know what the Plan 3gC : t on's reasoning was and what points should be included in the resolution Sneed that one possible option would be to take a straw poll ;; ...:4. f the Planning "rssion regarding the general concept of the project in order tt to give Staff some"direction and the resolution could be brought to the next i f meeting. TheAther option would be to hold the discussion and Staff would 111 prepare the resolution without taking a vote. She explained that having a vote oaken thatAt ening would not result in the proposal getting to City Council any z;tttt i. :,x " 'sn if it was decided at Planning Commission's next meeting. Staffs wia• ~i '' twas to have a PUD plan developed that would include a detailed h'*'explanation of what was approved and what further issues would need to be resolved at later steps in the process (lighting, signage, traffic and access, dimensional requirements for building such as heights and setbacks, uses • allowed, drainage, etc.). Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 6 Chair Peterson felt that a straw poll would be a good idea to see what direction the members are leaning, but personally felt that it was too early to make a decision on the request. Ar #} Mr. Mike Black, Land Use Planner for Royal Oalc:ktealty i: h >• stew, addressed the PlanningCommission. He introduced the o `e"` `e`•#`''••j�#"' #t �epre� �s'��of D.W. Jones., Inc., that were present: George Winiecki, Wlt �: gency; Rai nd C ck Durand # 5-D Limited; Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oa vRealty, B an Rossi Wi liarm,.# y" Smith of Biko Associates; Charles Plow, Coming Engineer; and*, Wa"t". Attorney of Bagly and Benson < w Mr. Black presented to the Planning CommissidtragOitem9te concept plan which contains four elements: motor fuel station WiiirfastIctt**Far wash, family sit- down restaurant, senior housing with assstxliving, a # tce building on Highway 10. He pointed out that then n shows : 'e detail of the restaurant location. He indicated t t the n ` t was.. roved closer to the wetland to take advantage of the View anti t oP nge came the shifting of the private road between the...TO! stationand reM.Ight. He expressed that it is their intention to present to# `City of founds View a mixed PUD that is consistent • with the City's Comprehensive Placid with t technical studies that have been done for the Highway 10omdor.,Fle summezed some of their concerns re ardin the ro 1, the co'" g g p p� �„� y .�ite , tt00 foot buffer from the wetland to be e cc esse, but h r t. it is th motion to meet this requirement of the City's v� ` dinance` e Creek'lVatershed District. He indicated that they have providedi € lewalk'� o' Ater Lake Road and would consider public use of the boardw. € ;nature i' n deck located in the southwest corner of the site. He ex ; # goncem with Staffs recommendation for a public trail along the no side of ` find because of privacy and security reasons relating to the r housing `: :V: to the-north side. He added that he cannot . !>support that recthout better clarification and further discussion. He indicated that tty will satisfy the City's park dedication requirements in a cash API contribution to:` e City. Mr. Black briefly summarized the market needs analysis `i , and traffic impact report that was presented at the March 19, 1997, Planning #€€ .,Qmmis 'Meeting, pointing out that the existing service stations along Highway inaStairgat serve between 34 and 55 percent of the immediate traffic market and < 3the proposed fuel station will capture the existing void and will not redistribute the existing market. He added that the on-site circulation provided by the private loop street will assist in minimizing traffic and impact off the site. He expressed his desire to move on to the City Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Brooks inquired if the service station with . convenience store and fast food is negotiable. Mr. Black replied that they have Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 7 come forward with a PUD package, because of the efforts from the property owners and investors to put it together, and he expressed that it is important that each elment of the PUD is approved as a total package. He commented that the applicant is not prepared to move on with any one single item pf thOUD. Commissioner Brooks also expressed her concerg with thgt*LO titian between the Amoco Station across the street and the ne*Toility. 400010‘explained thats, ' there is a market of 34-55 percent that is not 4.1idressectiokti4f)ecility could" go in without infringing on the existing markeVitommi§g.her*06101..„4, expressed his concern with the number of gOiVatior*That have dosed isithOthe last twenty twenty years. ipkgRokm, Imwook. JoAnn Myers, 2624 Lake Court Drive, askepitattm Commission the definition of a B-2 zone and how this develoiibent iiiqzactirOgct the homes on the south side of the project. Chair Peters9aNd vario :itsotat are allowed in a B-2 district and briefly explained that,WWL. will take 140 on the south end of the project. Mr. Black pointed out gifigfd'1010.40 . and accesses to the project are proposed to be. AW 0, .m.ob.141‘.,„,,,i,:ff P lasi.SW • Rose Nejedly, 2701 County Road It#227, inquired if all the trees on the site - . .,, would be removed. Mr."tic indicApd that tf*se would be some impact on the existing vegetation but i0}:hot ha*" detailed ijlan with him. He indicated that they wouk be providin%,:v0detailefg '''''' plan at the development stage. Ms. N 7asked itaMik, e wetli000ir.e dredged out Mr. Black indicated that tileg,p is taldiiterout, butt= there were a number of agencies that would t hPvitattikonsulfettO*oing so. Mr. Black added that by dredging the ,,..,.m...z.:.,..,e.::..,s:i.os. \., wetlarIVROMpuld adenfli.tgoing standing water. '''.411110 Hqopt 2629Rtid§(04Lakitourt Drive, inquired about the 100 foot wetland differ and als*vt*ti his concern with the_p_o_ssibility_of_the_oils,salts,soaps, .AlsAtc., due to increase surface paving, from the gas station and car washes ,fiar entering the wetiOnd: Director Sheldon explained that the wetland ordinance sets ..,.: :- mzzik out that the 100 foot width that must be identified around all designated wetlands but that the ;0inance allows some construction within the buffer area with bkoitgp,Tini%*b review. She added that certain other activities would require lingtW1-eommission and City Council review. She explained that Staff is asking laip,:1:0degree the encroachment should be allowed. She explained that the City Engineer would review the plans to assure they have designed the drainage system and ponding so that the contaminants do not enter the wetland. Chair Peterson added that there has been strong public support in Mounds View for wetland preservation and the purpose of the Wetland Ordinance is to make sure • the wetlands are observed and not degraded. He added that the wetland buffer • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 8 was put into place in order to put some controls on what happens in the wetlands. He recalled that in the past some development had been allowed in the buffer, but that it was primarily intended to be a buffer and not for intensive development. Commissioner Stevenson added that the reason for the biker w4:10 make sure any development proposed for the wetland was reviewed. 4. ssioners Miller ;YxY>::YYY and Johnston expressed their concern with the erence�:� # �.:d delineations shown on the maps for 1988 and 1992 and asked"if 1997 #06.4000:140 different:<' Mr. Black indicated that he believed the I992flineatiot : uldx able,Yt `Y;4 Rice Creek Watershed District because it w of mo•Yhan fiveY�YY `Y:`. d, Mr. 4,.h atfY`r� i..:.x:,Y.7�•Y:.: :Jy`: Black asked if he could receive a copy of a letter 4'tity received frat }Army Corps of Engineers regarding this issue. He iri< at if the Army Corps of YYi2YYYYYY`.YYY4iYY Engineers is suggesting that a new delineatio a ).t ey would have it looked at and verified. Commissioner Brasaemle(.4pres$0.0042,does prefer to see buildings versus parking lots constructed,Yine buffer' because of the • `•YieiiYYzri`�n ,,y,. associated problems with run-off. Hpiggg eipr,essed sots Ohcem with the location of the proposed NURP (N; rt -Off P; gram) in the wetland and where in the upland could it be movedijfi } v :0* 1410.60W Chuck Plow, Project En 1 ter, repc� �d that t :e information he has regarding the 410 NURP pond indicates that 'not glifie wetla 'Y', yet if they were not able to use it as a NURP pond area,itie other NP poen the site would satisfy ponding requ' ements. ` •:ri`•'4. ,.�� ,t `v. ,\�}>,�.•`.,.`i..:i2.:i\Y:Yy4Y`�� ANLt..��}: .�:Y}::4•:•:v: �•�•:h ` y'v'::�v vtv:" B . enzy,Yv ` . , e Lane; expressed her concern with the number of gas stay'"n d.,car wa mounds View and inquired if the senior complexes in the areabeing fill `w $><.r `.„xwY Yr,;2sY>.::;Y;YY;<,s. nY.•<Y<zYYiY:Y?" ,.�Lti�Yn` YYLYY,L;!�YYYY ~` Y`} Jim teitlIK.child''Avenue, expressed his concern with the NURP pond ilithg-too-ctos:ftittabadergruund parking for the proposed seniorbuitding. Chair <Peterson repliie believes the elevation to be similar to the ground floor elevation at Silver Lake Pointe on the south side of the project which also has 01:fi underground eking. Mr. Miller also expressed his concern with the traffic flow on it the corner of ilver Lake Road and Highway 10. Y`KY;YYYYYYYY 040 h, Transportation Planner for Biko Associates, addressed the traffic yAx µ stacking concerns by briefly summarizing the plan and the results of the traffic study that was conducted for this proposed project. He described the design of the loop road and driveway access to the gas station/car wash facility and indicated that the County Engineer, Dan Solar's, opinion was that the loop road is important to the project. He informed the Commission that a sign would be placed on the site to inform car wash traffic to not block the driveway and that on-site staff for the car • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 9 wash could help regulate traffic. He added that quick turn-around modifications could be made to the driveway to widen it if necessary. Chair Peterson commented that he believes that this corner causes problems routinend that the north driveway entrance would not be able to be used duringsh.� r. He was also concerned with the speed of cars near the proposed a€fe • Smith responded by saying that because Silver Lake R4. is a tacility, there ' would be more of an opportunity to pass any sbound t, >;a `. :ay be rjs stacked up and that the northbound stacking.w1l be at 4.40.k ofd eriod:; ' (approximately 10 minutes of the peak perio d wo�d not occur .` p, entire peak hour. Mr. Smith pointed out that't `L t' lopment would' "'the envelope for motorists and slow down the s ret* fiver Lake Road. Commissioner Johnston inquired if the trali ::;: . , „conducted on projected or existing traffic. Mr. Smith indicated that tl''e stu j as qucted using existing traffic. Commissioner Miller expressectom conte V `,; fusion of cross- traffic from Silver Lake Road. Mr. Srt #e:....ood here' m but alluded to the fact that Americans are accustom. r ti :':� <g cars as stations. He added they are aware they must be exj, careful 'ncvhile driving at any gas station. Commissioner Ober expres d con t$th southbound stacking on • Silver Lake Road turning ogettie gas.; ation. 4.0mith assured the Planning Commission that this issue::•ad be 'ooked a 'and that it was determined that there would not be a pr. ` ... m. Ate ,-"- Jim$ er, 7980 , Id Aver e��`�: ��"' expressed concern with a potential a ble G ..vizzmitzzs:1 ..``Lake F bgd during peak times. Ralph D.: ,5-D Li (€l wvsgibik vised them that both their traffic consultants and momie. the Cn.• t g eer have a mined this issue and have indicated that this project wQ �of mo "` a'or traffic access problem. He also mentioned that the - - . »><<. ;- his come ' - • - - - - - - =• - - •- - - site Yand that its prop € e``would be an impulse, not destination, type use. He added <<` that this is exactly the use they are proposing. He also clarified that when entering >ii a the gas statiorconsumer would first purchase the gas and then get into line for a car wash,s. sd therefore, no quick decisions would need to be made at the time « f entrano/ >:i<MVINIRE .:�x,::art < $` &:Miller, 7980 Fairchild Avenue, again expressed his concern with traffic in and out of the site. Mr. Smith responded by saying that studies show that the proposed drives will work. . Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court Drive, inquired if the applicant wanted to receive a decision from the Planning Commission this evening. He also inquired Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 10 about the Highway 10 study that was done for this area. Economic Development Director Bennett explained that a study was conducted, with public input, and the results of the study would be presented at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, Apritlyth at City Hall. She indicated that she had not seen the final draft of t.. studut that it did mark that corner as an impulse corner and that one of the., *moons from the consultant was that it should be packaged as a. ed un ` '. ment so that design elements could be carried throughout et evelopm*** aving spot f: development on the site. Mr. Ruggles expre d that herd n €k �`at the;,, YK� ,Y.` >:Y:YYYY:.;.Y.Y,`;YY>YY:� •YYYYYYY. Planning Commission could make a decision hout.#tt seeing thei softs ie study that would be presented Monday even ;Chair Peterson corfOtpethat it would be premature to take action this evening nd mented that there are manydetails to be worked out. Y YmligY>Yr µ ,YY.YY•,Y:..•:•Y. George Winiecki, WIN Agency, 2732 I ii way 10, ii i e . e Commission that, in the past, he had discussed de 'Y .. .:of this s :<< hi the City and that the City had indicated that they wo1rkbµ� .planned#unit development for the site. He too stated that this.<.was wha h .::.. .••. in < ::. Chair Peterson asked thqkw Planng Commissioners give their overall direction ill regarding this project. l-Wpirted b indicating hat he had some concerns with the total quantity being buitt#ii the sit ,.'He indeed that the uses are acceptable, except that he is conceed with } mbe'of car washes and gas stations in Ma s View aro es�.ted to recommend that part of the project. ..kYYY:�: •Ye�YYYY.Yz ``:Y```YY„.`,.`YYY...Y� » •., �YYYYY.YY YY .Y tia Y�Y� �^^.. Co " er Obert''exe sed his concern with the architectural integrity of the projectiteves tha } ue needs further review. He added that he would like to s t `: wits of the fudy presented Monday evening because he believes 4'•Ztt�sYYYY? \:Y2?#Y'YYYY..Y�,Y•.k.� •:::.Y� this would'`pf fi al roleY'in his decision making for the development of the Y\4�. ;c mdor H t l ncemed with the local residents and th traffic problems Om ;v they may expen ftMlbn Silver Lake Road. He added that, as a resident of <F Mounds View, t `making the commercial corridor pleasant and pleasing, it would AN increase property values and, therefore, the City Council would not have to :4 t = artificially ra.irproperty taxes. omIss1oner Johnston concurred with Commissioner Obert that the ::YYY..:.. `: rn ssion needs to wait to hear the results of the corridor study. Commissioner Johnston is also concerned with the amount of building within the wetland buffer zone and its current delineation. He admitted that, at present, he thought the project needed to be scaled back. He realizes that there are a lot of gas stations and car washes in the area, but if that was what the study recommended, he would • • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 11 have to go along with the study. He also suggested that perhaps soil testing be done in relation to the underground parking concern. Commissioner Miller also expressed concern with develop, ntin the wetland buffer and the circulation around the car wash an . ''` bion. She also inquired as to what the objection was with the g+; ei ,#ations', as tUe gas station itself or was it that we did not need any more i founds Vim=• ' ded that it"' the study showed there was a need and busiss for it,.: uld we> �` >S: :ding< • the wayof progress? She also expressed cp}:: em w ,as statin v.:»190.: `+` "��as fast as others come in but wondered if that s , ` `"the Planning C"a> ion's concern. She added that if the buffer issue crsolved, she believed the project had a nice mix of things, but questionea,```• sity of the fast food component of the project. Chair Peterson is`ked ifI ,contracted with any one for the gas station and fast food facilities, Mr. Sm < <t • . d that the 43.:4proposed gas station would be a Holl : ; +;_ and thaay'had had contact with Dairy Queen for the fast food; j•ert` dded<fey were concentrating :Y�a '4.. tii�:122�.2YY``Y: 2 z:fr on the "treat" aspect. .. Y .,:y •` +;x xx+,zr , • 2+ •.Coir~-. Commissioner Stevenso.epresseis concern with the viability of the gas station and that when onipans u +;;mother o `` closes. He also expressed concern with the numb f car w es and: `}t water usage generated. He rem ed that in the'si mer the; is=cannot even water their lawns because`' inue of4,.:T... .,;`'` ening b _`i`3t car wai� to operate. He did not have a z. " �• Jth the2ce store and a small restaurant component but felt 1 U`ttT. ce feet . € r ++small for a restaurant. He had no objections with the oi :g or seiing. He added that Silver Lake Pointe filled up and a waitingwas reated . ie had no doubt that the proposed senior building wnso` < « { e added that the location of the ponds could be worked out. :L.zzk' smear iCommissionerB o rs expressed her disagreement with the convenience >.i i��+Y +�+*yam <'v store/gas statio con iponent of the project. ><>` x < ` CommissionerALIF Brasaemle expressed that he liked the concept of the planned unit ::.,:.... P P _'>< �>developmenthand believed it to be clearly the direction in which the consultants had 3}i4 i�i <::K:<::::: ; ��•�or the parcels. He added that he thought there were a lot of things '.= sed for a fairly small site. However, conceptually, he saw no problem with three of the four uses: the senior complex, the restaurant, and the office building. He indicated that he had a problem with the gas station/convenience store/fast food proposal and was having difficulty reconciling what a portion of the Towle 411 report indicated and the opinions of the residents of Mounds View. He thought the Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 12 Commission needed to wait for the SRF report in order to make a final decision which he felt could be made on April 16th. Y, sYti Chair Peterson expressed some additional concern regard the 4treways along Highway 10 and the parking requirements. Directgr Sheld Yk M:' ."ed that with the uses that the applicant has proposed, there wo I ; enough: : to meet parking requirements. She added that there some con:`e the office >±`�}' building and whether the building needed to Y`amaller to schen ad to ' :4.Y` •�ti:;.:iy` '•4`Y�YY`"tY2Y2:Y``':"`•`..`'•:s�„� SC\�, parking. Chair Peterson expressed that he f`�:i he wand bound"• OW certainly affect how much development could ' o e on the site anti:`: if a `z�`��>��z;rte new delineation would be required. Director S #o t dicated that the City could require it as a condition. Chair Peterson add *t h `$` s not totally opposed to the gas station facility if the market study proved it x=z;Y:Y, Vona Commissioner Miller inquired what*tot-,,$:,.., ash we <p• •• osed. Ralph Durand, 5-D Limited, informed t Y ...:*-::<<Y `.`zza,,0*, �z hg • fiittiOo€Y t the df wash would be a tunnel wash which would be the` ily one y .f` .�,€ ' f than the Perfect 10 in Spring Lake Park. Chuck Durand, 5-C imite termed the Commission that they could reclaim up to 6Q. cent ofie watersed, and other than the rinsing, • recycled water would be; 'so the pater usage wouldn't be as great as most car YYr.Y washes. _;� n.�tt• . Alzk tizt nz ,z.zz....z, „.„, Ge<. :- .. Winiec YY . z.Agency "'��'':':"`er ted that the older gas stations close b `" key ha s .d their use and the consumer today demands services :,�,„zzz.r�x'zz % �xY:titzz�zzezY�:` :;z�. that e •Yt: osed`'to Pers. He added that there are a limited number of uses t1 upport of the property and he believed it will provide a viable se to a eieftcomma y. gyp . .. :tt`t;tt , sty nning •sso �Y:=`; a:' on stated that he thoughTaall of the unresolved-issues had `.,„?...4.,> een addresselkkte Planning Commission. .Y, Te Aim 0, >_ Commissioner Obert expressed his excitement with the residents attending the Lt a'i.% Planning Co,:Mission meetings and encouraged them to continue. "----7:`::-.t, 44 `tk`€ heldon asked the Planning Commission what they wanted for their next Ft <xri<< ri i ig. She indicated that she understood the applicant's desire to move forward, and that the City had an overall limit of 120 days from when the application was submitted to when it needed to be in front of the Council. Chair Peterson inquired if the applicants would like to make any additional111 comments. George Winiecki recalled that at one time his lot was zoned B-3 but • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 13 that a developer had it down-zoned to a B-2 for a proposed book store. He added that when the development did not occur, the zoning was left B-2. Mr. Black commented that he appreciated the Planning Commission's review a:: r� consideration of this proposal. He added that the applicant,is Inco bitable with the Planning Commission's overriding concern as't relategi . >gas station and the buffer. He indicated that, at the present time; ,ie item : . eve proposed are ' not negotiable. He realized that this was only. �:"• ncept re Lta `';'..-.at during tI e. development stage there would be additionalt�'$ ues to taddrG$ ?g -ati more r>y` cL ; : hat thorough review by both the Planning Comm n amity Counarith� tip:,:. �.�#' ��>?>•'•�'iz:�t�#:«:c the Planning Commission, at their next meett rflat' a recommends td'the Council so that they can present their proposal# rt Council's comments and review so that they could either come back aftc #caption with a different plan or proceed with the development stage. >ei k: Commissioner Brasaemle proposed€akir .• repare pion of both approval and denial for their next meeting. H atSo . ed that: ' aff complete as much information in the PUD documeregs posy i' �a #fanning Commission could fil in the blanks at their next m. in "�`:kli :; ."""` • 4.4 •:... ::: t:. Chair Peterson asked taw: • lican ince thy.``had expressed no room for negotiation, if the PlanrIrCommtkon wont be looking at the same proposal at their.pp ext meeting`s `#` Id there YaRt , ahges made to the proposal. Mr. Black inf< the cam), s; that a t t ceeded into the development stage, they " ive f it a.` its on the'"architectural style of the buildings, landscaping, tra g .. ion ori 'storm water quantity and quality control and NURP and`d legg `# t addenta rences between the Planning Commission and the applica it art. l-Ie itmented that the Planning Commission was su eetfing`4`''"Yr�tr1$ of the gas station which was something that they would not "fisider-at- hid1 ``" dvised-the-Commission-thatthe-issues-regarding-too - �ii much developmentaiPthe site or the impact on the wetland could not or would not Azt.4:* be changed befe their next meeting. .:1:s1 4.1 ••4Vl`•k Aa Mal AV ¢i i sinner. g`ks left the meeting at 10:10 p.m. vammaymmw 7. Staff Report/Information Items a. Director Sheldon reminded the Commission that the SRF Consulting Highway 10, • Area 9 Report would be presented at the City Council meeting Monday evening. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 14 b. Ms. Sheldon reported that the University of Minnesota Design Course had provided a schedule of the meeting and they are looking for Commissioners to serve as a regular member of the design team and as an alternate member. Sobof the meetings are at the campus from 4-6:30 pm. Others would kin Midlids View from 11:30 am -3:30 pm. They would typically be on Tues. ' d1Wednesdays. Commissioner Brooks indicated to Ms. Sheldon a `dier that sh could attend the meetings from 4-6:30 pm. Commissioner Stevenson was des na!•e tis thettY. regular member and Commissioner Brooks aa:< ie alter•. "`,;;rte:;: =:}Y c. Commissioner Obert indicated that he could .atten \ e April 10thr ie Basics Course but could possiblyattend on .. =' '`t`i`ii"�" Vebeik 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissionersye ,4A There were no reports from the Commissioners. ii:„ t•ivi?K:i;>.ki, iii ,� 44 iik V 9. Adjournment . ` iiv `ct `zts ` : iL ::: of iii ,v z:�£`.?`new-z> Planning There being no further business befor �the Plar. �ng Commission, the meetingIli adjourned at 10:10 p.m. �,Aecial` enda meting to discuss the O'Neil property immediately followed th. gular meeting. ..hr .”}` 41, `.'0"`, .:``.`::} i::i::::::::::::::::fin:v.�i ,}:.\tint fix"z >.sii s. Respecalmomw _.**b. : ittedmtiiti s„ .,`.::a:. Vi:zx:.w:::z.:, zizii i zz i`zuiz z zzz :k `tiz��``�``�.a'i`zz?` zzs., Pamela Seion�}'�yi::iitiitiiittiiit: ss:� Comm q�evelopm? }2. .::% •r LC»yw Alr `� Y}..� d the have come fore d Flvith a PUD package and are not prepared to move on with any o Single item of thea 1JD ::z zittitt :. tiV:iiiii:::::miry::::``.•:::•.::`:µ%i:�Y`• • . PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Agenda Meeting April 2, 1997 Moundaj w City Hall • 2401 Highway 10, Mods , MN 55112 (Held at the Bel Rae Community Cente# 3 4 dgewood Drive) 1. Call to Order <,. �} ; ,,,, ,�...,.>>-.: _' till .A'Y The meeting was called to order by Chair Peter 110:30 p.m. (imnat'ely following the regular meeting). > ` r 2. Roll Call ;3a1- Iffitlik„, ?vozadaaN rMembers present: Commissioners, J o .bert, Mil ,Brasaemle, Stevenson and Chair Peterson (C. amiss pr ks leftthe meeting at 10:10 ..2Y'� it`d'``•.:;' ::::s `,. .a4J�Y,ry xy. III :i by :,`:'s�` V.M.V.kW Also Present: Community. elo.ftpmenfDirecto;'$heldon, Planning Associate Ericson, and Council Liaoopreiners. �` . a �<<,:t.,.a :::: . tIlt �.,r2,..:A \i'"tom:`:lW y: Index MIA d i.z.dd Page Planning C'.•�, €K 71-97;h 'za` ' "hensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning at a„ „;`k``t` `v~t.,.. r::,:,,,„ To PUD For eater Buildings, 2340 Highway 10 2 . ?, aka..,. .g:zi <>ti krt `rY Qiiiiiaigiiiiik ..::§:w z rLr g.:kv • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 • Special Agenda Meeting Page 2 3. Planning Case No. 471-97 2430 Highway 10 Applicant: Anthony Properties Management, Inc. _,::; v Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Den 3 Residential to Mixed Use PUD Allowing Commercial and Office Uses< -Reztj B-1 and R-2 to ' PUD to Allow Development of a 16-Screen Movie Th or and Thr 1 ;,Square Foot Office Buildings. =.r ; 1 '`�r�-;„.f.„;ink:=:o :.. . ., tt =1»11::x:1 ;; :. 1:: VPdat Mr. Wendell Smith, representing the applicant,Mth''. . Properties Management, `: Inc., was present. 4 tomb, >. ;1<{h .,. Director Sheldon explained that, since ning hest meetir g fur r research had ..:4.. been done on issues that the Planmjssion brought bp and a report was provided to the Planning Commis or Itha d l' ,the issues into two groups: 1) those issues that had been more or less cf ? d :f d 2) those issues that were still the subject of discussion. T ,issuestt :Staff felt had been resolved • were the wetland itself arNtilkatno OristructiotWould occur in it, the proposed drainage system and the itity of the draina system to filter the water before it entered the wetland ad its capAly for the amount of water that would occur. The;;fact that it wa .0 ity Eng ne&s pinion that there would be no adverse affectof the e4OLV#OpertieS4palitrthe site and the existing flooding lag* s n the'prowlyxould not be made worse. The soil conditions were suitablek tdevelopr vegetation and landscaping proposed would preserr`ve the a covgallig`specific landscape plan for the developed area wou # tnezttt t1 .e ge. She also discussed the viability of the • posed off€' =>: ' economic impact of the project, public safety and the ;;1yire Marshal s'`iieids. She indicated the Fire Marshal would require a 56 ;;>foot wide accest'ad'that an emergency access be available near Donatelle's. She added thattrandscaping and screening met the requirements of the Code as it` >i did setbackstliuilding heights and other applicable zoning issues. `� ��� �1Di ecter<' 'eldon continued with her Staff Report addressing the unresolved mooding0She indicated the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan was inconsistent with the ~current zoning and asked if it should changed. Staffs view was that the proposed designation was more appropriate for this site than either the adopted designation or the current zoning, if it is the City's desire to develop the commercial potential of the Highway 10 corridor and add to its tax base. Director • Sheldon continued be asking if adequate measures had been taken to provide the necessary buffer to the single family neighborhood. She went on to address the • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Special Agenda Meeting Page 3 traffic study and indicated that there is a supplemental study to what had already been done and that the information would be available on April 16th. The study wouldl include what happens during theater peak time and what woulcsther land uses would generate for traffic. She further addressed the parking•sues as outlined in the staff report. Copies of the Staff Report were` `:` ;' ted to the audience. k .{r: rvx Viz:.>. 1;;•>.;x: >•, AO Tom Ernster, 2504 County Road H2, inquir why the cifii i wtheaters 4::•:::, e chosen for the report. Mr. Wendell Smith responded saying thatch' a y ng to present as much information as possible **eryone can makeea objective decision. He indicated that he will dr � `...:.this weekend at area ����:rrrv�n..: theaters if needed. `"```{` ;{". Mr. Smith continued by stating that require hem to I f` '>the 1:4 ratio for iiz parking requirements may be overkill,{ • hat the- �""`• fission not concentrate on the worst possible::: :e: ii x:•;:, � rr�•ikw- :� �< yAok at �the information for an objective decision. { . ` "` ,,:= ,z4 • `�' • 1�1 ice' \$\`••:{.:}�' Chair Peterson asked if the Ludy areas had good public transportation available. Mr. Smith was not quite but inflated that~` e could find that out. From a conceptual standpoint,•;' Smith 'rated Of they could meet the 1:4 ratio. Ta ster ` }_tee �.,:..:».;��:;�"': . okk , 2 my Rok ft e q ressed his concern with too much pi ''WO :{:envird, • v : _ `reasons. Mr. Sn •We t..on to""�`c s' : nature of small screens and their turnover rate and add. hdtt ,profitsi < •a theater business were the concessions and that {Tire vk`Ai:tpe`d t to the` viabilityof the theater. Commissioner Stevenson they-��r`�vei'�€..<k�•{: i fled-that-the i : •§10 . wnship-theaters—were not-a�ood-example because They do a poor js aggenng movie start times. He expressed that he would like <• �' assurances tha%,:,•:sete staggered times will take place. Commissioner Brasaemle A <<< added that traffic concerns are a result of grouped start times. A resident raised a v l concern th a wouldn't want the times too staggered in case the group we were miSi'N µ with wouldke to see different movies. 11111111ibe 'ir{rr �rrtivrti �rx:{rr i r Sheldon asked the Planning Commission for guidance regarding the County Road H2 buffer issue, whether it should be left in its natural state, add things to it, or change it into a more manicured landscape buffer. She asked what would happen if the office buildings are not built right away and should the trees be • left until the office buildings are started. Director Sheldon continued her discussion Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 • Special Agenda Meeting Page 4 addressing encroachment into the wetland buffer and reported that the project encroaches into six percent of the wetland buffer area. Director Sheldon informed the Commission that she had meatwith .i fl ipals from Irondale, Edgewood, Sunnyside, and Pinewood Stools. She tnarized that the X22`.."^....Y:.. overall opinion was that the theaters would hav itappre b[e>' ect in terms of skipping school. She reported that the principal lrondal� " 2 dhigh"` that school students are mobile and some of the `o skip s •G MOOl butthe ar cunt t at �. •M�,•Y `2;;2:222y22222?\;:22222}n..;;......,'.`J' students skip is minimal and he did not feel that{a theater in the con ti ld cause more children to skip school. The pnnc at dgewood Schde.4104hat there would be a negligible affect on truancy.`1rted that if a child is a chronic truant, it will not make a difference arlditi` eiother reasons for it. Ms. Sheldon also reported that the principal feltArt thei •vr to time, that it would be a good thing for children to have a constr etiue place2 r t e community. Ms. Sheldon reported that the Pinewood. ? t ?tt that it vcunot cause additional truancy and that they saw potentia'oP: of i \the theater to sometimes use the facility for emergencies (plat children ';`:�;"''"'�" cold weather in case of a gas line break, etc.). She ater felt tha tthe tt o management could cooperate with the schools to find ouj{ fey did; Y ve an a �ac a' "ional child show up and call II • s the school to inform therelp a advised thernsi6t the principal at Sunnyside thought the theater wa too distantp have.a. % impact. .•2. ':`. ..2222..:+r4..,22Y:.•.. MO dell Smithx mented most theaters work with school districts for owin s:.�z 2:• �€ ! ;�' 9 2`.`'`2.22`22.::."•.\ Ms. S ntinued'..`.1; 3=hceview of the Staff Report. She mentioned that the Econo ' iment ditonlission passed resolution supporting the devop`mer* ater"`s: ,:e:tp,J _ 2.x.2:`.2 :`hL...Y ! Vls.Sheldon addx at she received a letter from Dana Mandoza, 2633 Clearview Avenue, who wj; unable to attend the meeting this evening but was at the last meeting. In th tetter, he expressed that . She also distributed a draft exampf a PUD document for this project. Ay .2\22"'`2:�.22`2ttiN:°`'2`22.::. 2L2�2 >t, m�ztioner Brasaemle inquired if there had been any significant changes '`�<1s 1N Ehe last meeting as far as design or concept? Mr. Smith responded that there had been no changes. The Planning Commission opened the floor to comments from the audience. • • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Special Agenda Meeting Page 5 Tom Emster, 2504 County Road H2, inquired that if a sidewalk was installed along County Road H2, would the developer pay for it. Director Sheldon responded by saying that the sidewalk was an idea that Staff had sugOsted in case the new traffic study shows higher traffic levels on County Road 12 Discussion ensued regarding the merits of traffiezta. s ar Aute was faster. Commissioner Brasaemle commented that w ` nstru `tori` my Road t takes place, more than likely a sidewalk woul. a include` th`' h':k``'` ctior Mr. Smith commented that he had traveled t!..4., a $ .ait is faster to make a u-turn at place "x" rather than ng to go to place;. . Mr. Smith reminded the Commission that the: ` il` 4LINgking with MnDOT on getting an access and a traffic signal. A member 611010.*:. nce raised a concern about MnDOT posting "no u-tumn signs. < Smith iriattaAtiot they would have a written agreement with MnDOT asp ?tevelopisfage. xtaw Sandy Simmons, 5041 Edgewod Driv. Y e` ``"""'"" :fir desire that the office building be built at the same tine as the 'ieaterse 'vide a buffer. Mr. Smith • indicated that Mr. Jay Ant�will not~ uarantee`tti t he would build the office buildings until there is a mat for z' m. He :: ` ed that Mr. Anthony has agreed to leave the area woods 'Mr. S h also IR"that the office buildings are the profi center and the`ef Mr. An. ` " ha .w rest motivation to market them. 4.1\Z"..*?.,. C "'. ?""k\,' :Y.tY`.":k Zf Y , ; raised& to cern with he cleanliness of some of the restaurants in MoundsMcitgelyisfitix and tilatiftyaVuld be inspected. She was informed that the county 'bathe hea s ctions for the restaurants. Amokow A r ent'xistsw 44#44,m01,..d ,- service road would be connecting the restaurant and the ,•eaters. Dir` hr°$�• • dicafedit att rs-ne}ybedifficult sire-the restaurant site is separated i wetland but perhaps with mitigation it could be g..ty accomplished. Jr ::``.`":::::ori =iaa Commissioner Johnston requested the sizes of the restaurant sites and the inlinuaresAtjiges of the proposed restaurants. Mr. Smith indicated that Parcel A is Int, f'es and Parcel B is 1.54 acres. He indicated that the sizes of the _r: •. rrants would be to Code. • Sandy Simmons, 5041 Edgewood Drive, expressed her concern regarding emergency access off site for emergency vehicles. Director Sheldon indicated that • the Fire Department has suggested that an access near Donatelle's be installed but that it could be gated for emergency access only. Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 411 Special Agenda Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Miller inquired if there would be access to the theater parking from Donatelle's. Mr. Smith indicated that they are very open to the idea, either by walkway or vehicle, and indicated that he has talked with Mr. Donatelle vho is also open to the idea. •i`; -Mir 04. Tom Emster, 2504 CountyRoad H2, comment at thi�t� n is the best possible for this particular and does not wa`'the site �`"��`�` " •• ,,,,, � :�� 'r�d from whal%�• had been resented. : "` ;: ;�a ,, .,,,v Fz...x k ' �e"'�z+`...iw'iz izi iia:,zY,##V Chair Peterson commented that the Police Do .`:......... nt has recomn ; +that the City try to get a full signalized intersection ' `„ ;aps realign Edgewood Drive to join the site at a 90 degree angle. Mr. Smit d ttthe study would probably indicate that the project could be Ole wit�"1 :nal. However, they would prefer to have one installed. He ad,;, ,;,:•,that they t1 City to work with MnDOT but that they need a decision:: µ:, the C `. that they can move forward with the development stage£ bi f eed in Working with MnDOT. A resident indicated that he like"the theater r'```'"'��TA"' does not like the trafficva.City tID e, • Chair Peterson sugge `` . that t:: go ove ; e issues that still need discussion. They commented that Compt� ,.1t'�`is out-of-date and wondered if it sh.,<;4 a amend, .. indicat ,S does not think we could do much better ttOliatic for forlffOlatommisia`ner Stevenson commented that he has been on` : g : < ay 10`T e�for the last five years and they saw the only devel�"":.,.."itt this sliI: '•because of the mix of zones. He added that the Comp be recite. AP) ''Vjilatrak\s„ tom Emt , - ..;:;•,`x`�.` y—R H2, indicated-that he has looked atthe old . >�Lomp Plan and itggest that the area wasn't to be high impact development. Commissioner AL Brasaemle added that certainly a PUD will give the City more � ,mcontrol as f � as development. Commissioner Obert asked what happens when `i ` l, eCo ,lan is redone. Would they take into account the possibilty for rezoning Ileigitiggiffty and would it remain the current zoning even if it is developed as a INWHe also inquired if it is approved as a PUD, would it be coordinated into the revised Comp Plan as such? Director Sheldon responded by saying that the existing zoning and the Comp Plan do not match. The Planning Commission could proceed to make a recommendation on the zoning alone and not touch the Comp Plan. She added that what regulates the use of the parcel is the zoning and • Minnesota does not have a requirement that you have to have consistency • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Special Agenda Meeting Page 7 between your Comp Plan and your zoning. The zoning could be changed to accommodate the project and it would still not match the Comp Plan. She is not, however, advising that be done. She expressed that she thought the;, .•mp Plan that now indicates residential is different enough from the e;:•: ,in >x: 9 9 proposed zoning, and that we should finally make a decision regardi �i�;:�. ',�.:�•�•the Comp Plan should say. Commissioner Obert asked if the; ommiss seeded with the ' .=Y �•K�1tiZ:::Y w applicant's PUD proposal, would it then be do Director,, r icated that" the property would no longer be vacant and Id not be bat :�YrA adctsU that the state law states that zoning takes p +:,„,,,dent• er comp pl' & y are different. She commented that it would �1, Y: to Staff if theyut on whether or not the Commission felt that there�` e room on this parcel for commercial activity. The Planning Commissicggat the Comp Plan should be changed and that rezoning to a PUD co :d`be usl € ` tool to control and limit negative impact for the property. ,:, ..� = xk«z=w{ . The Commission brieflydiscusse `'••"Y` d:€ ���e' `' .•nalizati.�r�and to align Edgewood Drive with the site. The Planning<:Commis td < € Oposed to this. Mr. Smith Y;`• � ..wY`Y asked that the Planning Commission make a decoron their propsal prior to • receiving a decision from M I DT. C.«imissiok 'r Brasaemle requested that they receive some assurance MnD that if t<• proposal went through, the City would continue workinget the,; `nal pu L ` Mr. Smith brought up the resolution YYh �:YtY::.: L22Y` from DC remindir ;tommiss .,; EDC recommended approval of the prx `Y"`•: Howeve ,� anted tIt work with the Developer to seek a signal 'Yy`x4\.t'::•L,`,.:..t.:.\ :,#...:.Y. 2YY:`Y``..:'`i`.Y Isooks Parkingg% asemens :soaping and the buffer between the residents on County aoa < Y ere brn 'I iscussed. Mr. Emster expressed some of the co. . S b ` nts ort County Road H2 about screening, the overall ; nascapirrg;aVearance of�pro-ppsed-fence: He commented that the .LzYr: ,.YYYY,r.YYY: e,�4�residents wante' yep property values as high as possible. Mr. Smith replied ` that he City wok cdntrol the fence design during the development stage. Iii. CommissioneBrasaemle added that the residents would have an opportunity to irY:'. A`:M.Y•b comment at.:0 Development stage. Director Sheldon advised the Planning YY;;;;}}} Y.commi§, hat they could defer the landscaping issue and meet with the ;YYr' ItYY ` '� :ood to come up with the most acceptable combination. A resident inquired if the homes along County Road H2 that were purchased by Jay Anthony would be rezoned. The Commission responded that they would remain residential. • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 • Special Agenda Meeting Page 8 The Commission went on to briefly discuss the wetland buffer and encroachment of the project into the buffer and they indicated that this is not an issue. .a. Chair Peterson inquired about reconstruction of County Road RqtkH2.ttitecessary. Director Sheldon responded that they do not expect that th;, eI : ttf traffic would trigger reconstruction. A resident expressed hiss oncem*filMilg for reconstruction due to increased traffic flows fgti f is type ofvp�fi hector .: Sheldon informed the Commission that there:10 plans tot toenl e 1.2<to}.be reconstructed in the year 2000. `. ;w � `kt`a``�,,,kk;,,~<k i§ `k~; z?k:a� kk ..::;` :rig%..i,: $ k k on CountyRoad H2 if the kqeilw The Commission talked briefly about installing?+'„``;`.k> �.� increased traffic, as a result of this project, po014 risk to pedestrians, but agreed that the impact would probably be in ftJnificant.>;h continued with their �t k:a ::kk kk:'tk discussion regarding sidewalks along Higt way 10, traf : .2` rid installing a boardwalk around the wetland. Mr. $ # tented that tkItifieJay Anthony provided a letter to the City indicatipsif# l ing to Ofk with the City regarding trails and walkways. i actor S e t the Commission that the •}« � <:� �``Z�`�,`Y`Y',`Y,A`2ft``.`:J<2ki^.kk`.`:'.'k�'� City has existing wetland creditsfrom tlgolf Instruction that possibly could be used if a walkway:.,0`<,0>,"0 oardw: k infring i'into the wetland, but they would 111 need to find out if this pro e,t>, voulc a prion ruse for the credits. .4S3ml 0 ITO Mk The ommission dic that th. i . sue would be dealt with at a later date. M,r. h reass, n that theywtt eat the sign criteria and added that they a <is `i'` nng to 1401 nument rgn with a reader board showing movies and star • : :..::k: •., Chair Petersonncluder t the Planning Commission is in favor of what has Rife `g'tx but at no` ction would be taken this evening since it was a .<< scussion me'- f :,{° :a ed t e Commission What was their generalflingand At;direction of this:Wm*: Mr. Smith asked if the Commission could take a straw vote so that he has an idea <l▪ ,, of their feelitegarding the project. Other than traffic concerns that need to be ▪: tY` .:;:i.:§.:.: = xxkx{ korked.ct :� �nd given other potential uses for the site, all Commissioners 'k�k''� �' d`that they are in favor of the project. • • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Special Agenda Meeting Page 9 4. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commi, n,:.# meeting gy- adjourned at 12:30 a.m. :x x >?�. Y ci.`I "`'i`;La` `t`22``.`;{Alii •r . i r2i.`, t-,',1.0:1.6e;:::::.....µ.. Y•Vo . v.�xiv"`xvv v. .. Res ectfull submittedk. , stNe `:.•• "�4. I:: Ai.•.4. it't i..,�``.." •.ict�'.''7 :`..•..: �}4.µV.. gy .-"As. :i`i `i2`2i:..`i':Y'�.r,4i 4 Pamela Sheldon szz` x`x.;A% �\�'��4a4�'iz?� i a Community Development Director4:4F. 1110.114, : ui;iiiiiiiii"`i"iii µi.40..i.004:10".%\,, 1:.,::: `i„ . -,....E.:::::::::::*..).` Nr r' A....4... .zx. mss .. :.z`"nom }`i1i!.."`.Y"` #i itNibitim it.,..%.t ": ^ti" III �......; y 5 `t.'i44..iiiiyi3' �pY.•N .t ;r° h 4, £$ <.gzk.. 7 „iii..`i x ,:a., iii.., `j ,�`\.• ,,,K:4 i4i,.. , "v R.•.`.kYti by 0...`�ij`k Ycµiia`L"`.Y,`' '>`.i`.``iY�.,t.:�::i"i``i.`•4 � A`ai.i.``�`".`.\2..•• �``"\4:4ii`.i., iz., `.".4``.:C\i`ii`` `i.``�ik.`i.`k lw '2�`ti �`.•`.S`i.�4``ii liii.i` . Y` A`ti.`.. „� i`,.::ii`,.. i`iiC4i..```i`-``.i2ki``.A`:t`� `"k. .�i�z, i. :�.m. ov `.h:.t.ge.ii... `.ice i`,..„^.k ..ii'u��...\\..i i.4ii.,`,4\att`: ` .ii:::::.a"•. ..a... ...".i i.i... �•at.iiii•�• w "a "i\ ` E _ idivw .`20 ``.iv``2`i` Y,�i`•. i; ":v 4` 4 i.4 44ii .0....... i:'i' y`'4ii4: `4A '� ::.W`2`aa i:..::it24k;:::`.��..•i~.`i42.i.:....'`4..W ,�;C`.a}A.4..i� .\`i.2\4`a`C. \.'.i4`y" tA `A.: ....NRA:fir • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting April 16, 1997 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds ViaMN 55112 1. Call to Order ; "•s\Sy''r'41§14m*„aitt k tib` The meeting was called to order by Chair Pe .,.,„:7 me`"' p son at 7��p.m.�: ;�t� `�.,�M,„„}�}< ..4�t 2. Roll Call PT r .�:, . iitiPe Members present: Commissioners, Johnsto,t 4,,•t •; #=:.,saemle, Stevenson and Chair Peterson (Commissioner Brooks left t'"- mee 0 p.m.) t � � ` n iAlso Present: CommunityDevelo m, 4� .:. heldon � nng Associate lw Ericson, and Recording Secreta •1, ies«: ��il Lia t n Koopmeiners arrived at 10:10 p.m. , ;;. ;; _ AY 0 3' zwitp } Approval of Minutes: Ma # 19 1997 g w Motion/Second: Stevenson/Br '=emle tk..=• proves+ minutes of March 19, 1997, as amended. w, .$l$ �. ,t ...ANSW •�.:;•tt\ 01 Motion attar:t ayes . 4. Citizen u:a n is on Items Not on the Agenda ,,toNi`..,,art\ t :;.::,..,"` TheVere`i' „i '. t{t requests or comments from the floor. ,t0:6* tt.tt...., lio Infix to Minutes =$k <,;; Page Resolution No. 504-NT'Modification No. 1 to the Project Plan for Mounds e r Economic Development Project and Establishment of Tax Increment 'k sings Qksfi •`No. 4 (Redevelopment) 2 : `No. 471-97, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning N 4 T > D> or Movie Theater and Office Buildings for Anthony Properties, 2340 Highway 10 Planning Case No. 477-97, Rezoning for D. W. Jones, Inc. for a Planned Unit Development, Silver Lake Road & Highway 10 13 • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997II Special Meeting Page 2 5. Consideration of Resolution No. 504-97 Regarding Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 (Redevelopment) tiY2k"'.k t}}.}:'fix Community Development Director Sheldon expla. thatflsvre west was before the Planning Commission because of a State » requirer9,< k >continued bya explaining that the City is proposing to form .a�*Attax in einem' h y dis called District No. 4 which would include the:,.; 1 •ertyytere the Be xl ted. She explained that the City has areas where m: :'{ 'om tax increme }icing can be spent and that the City has three distWet:P h tax increment finance district money is produced and this would be e Q tact. She indicated that the Planning Commission is being asked to' term ` het:00Kor not the formation of this district and the addition of the inco .'tream i vrall development plan for Mounds View is consistent wti! ° • rehensil:an. She added that ,�ks�w�z�,�Y.t.�• YYa Y i.kkkt the reason for forming this district. 061* increrneT it created by V.B. Diggs and use that increment to help I:2* race the om{���u}i ,rater project. She explained that part of theprojectwill in91.(t V.`' }� gs which is a private business and that this bus "'` III ids is ex-.acted to Buse the property to increase in property value. It will co . . . to b i�tax-payer entity but the rest of the project 4�k.w� will not be since it is a • .s: c projct She iljfined the Commission that improvements that o `• be elig �� %. >of the tax increment include: Ems:,,,.: :�YY`E"`k Yk co € ction of t pq:: g lot, irit.W. ;:: of utilities, and renovation of the building. sotetika.ted thatt `• .ping Commission may want to add a paragraph to the re`s u t they 1 t,µ.,odification consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as fol1 :}}:}},<;kx<>t<>}:` creatikkk; zkv is aglik O } `J' tact No. 4 would allow the development of a private.: tnewhich w ri q,in turn, produce revenues to assist in the installation of public ir'�l }`.. n s anitrenovation of a building intended for a community ;.D'i'ner for Mout :: The Mounds View Comprehensive Plan has divided the . 4City into 12 plaViltitfitricts and the proposed TIF District No. 4 is in District No. a*Z. 1. The Comprehensive Plan envisions the creation of a city center where there will <'+ tttt be a strong, vice identifying community focal point in this district. This district is ::::::::::%•:4% AW LttM1==k�:kk intended to ( :ka mixture of commercial; public; low, medium and high density . .tk } tkk•. siden `aild open space uses. The proposed project is consistent with this : e�` Sie added that it is Staffs recommendation to adopt Resolution No: 504-97. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve Resolution No. 504-97 as amended. Commissioner Brasaemle added that he thought this was a good idea for Mounds View. Commissioner Johnston inquired if there were 12 development . • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 3 districts in the City. Director Sheldon explained that there are 12 planning districts in the Comprehensive Plan which are separate from the TIF districts. Motion Carried: 6 ayes, 0 nays n` ,10 %MR% 6. r . ,„ Ar Planning Case No. 471-97mmos, .„:,,fir • `k Y` Y:: r,{.Y;.,Y4„; 2430 Highway 10 _ t ::x...>..•.;>x Y. r V,h`± vii,.\•. 'P+ `, Applicant: Anthony Properties Management, Inc. - ;��;;�,,L Y'�. .w�•Y�zz*`�Y- Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from, • e ' -.nsity Residential to Mixed Use PUD Allowing Commercial and Office As, an"dt �`••`,,�'•�`.•�`._kig from B-1 and R-2 to PUD to Allow Development of a 16-Screen Mo Yt'TYeeY' P �('�,; :ater art�•��� �1,000 Square Foot Office Buildings. `t, a ter„:` k 1.,I.$7. Mr. Wendell Smith and Mr. Jayy'Anthony 'epre t � he applicant, Anthony . Properties Mana ement In vere ent. ,,:c ,. Director Sheldon expl h d that Plan '• .. Commission has two actions mend .§PS: % 4;Ps. befog it; the pro ms c ; .,* - omprehensive plan and a request for a,.; • ,:YY • g fromz...:„„,,4..,•:34.,.,... . R-2 to-� `;_ . ` commercial uses. She=' ;kith the Y'` ' 0- ” : -nsive Plan amendment and indicated that the City's f not ific procedures for Comp Plan amendments. Shetaff created a set of criteria that the Planning Commission cctOiruse‘idikilihrfike whether or not the designation on the property should be Allianged. She ed that there have been a series of attempts to amend the •t , Comp Plan and�;tiere has been a range of designations considered . including highly commercial, mixed use, low and medium density residential, ago._ k office park, comorate headquarters office, or town home. The decision before uz ;lli Ythe Plannin ommission was whether to recommend to City Council to change zzz z z%'\kY z x, :}A`: µ# k m density residential designation to mixed use that would anticipate ,,.�:YY„YYYYY.Y..:„:,,,: �: p `'`Y`Y 'Y mmercial or residential uses. She read aloud the five goals noted on :0E ges 2 and 3 of Resolution No. 502-97. She noted as a general comment that this particular project and the Comp Plan amendment have raised several important issues: One is whether or not you can introduce a fairly intense commercial development onto a piece of land that is bordered by a major • highway but also bordered by a low density single family neighborhood. Staff proposed that the designation make it clear that a portion of the property is Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 • Special Meeting Page 4 suitable for higher intensity purposes and that a portion is not. She explained that any designation made to the property for the Comp Plan would remain on the land whether the theater project goes forward or not. 4 A ,,,, Mr. Jay Anthony inquired if the mixed use/lowe ntensit ' Ponds with the • area shown currently for the offices: Director N: -. 9on re hat it did. She explained that using two designations d.1"' addres. } ,>t of use*/ She added that, in terms of maintaining, an 9 here n " ssI uses and environmental quality, staff want=, de `• ate the wei1; €€... z indicate that it is an area to bepreserved. > ;§ is suggesting fffiie City take advantage of the commercial possibiliti- .i i operty with its proximity to Highway 10 by switching it from just resi tia 4.:0•:..i.:.!..,141 use. She stated that Goal No. 3 addresses.U •• • servatiosan } otection of property values. She explained th "itir"`"pit }' � � i��,techniq�€ >�iey would use in order 3c�w....,:sv ,.� �:stwv:w 46.1; to make sure the neighborhood d • s not x re Impa that would be detrimental. &, " 11100" is I wag" She went on to note thatNo. 4dressed: ompatibility with features of the natural environment, i.e.itsignatin •fhe wetla: s. GoaLN o. 5 is to ,IV ,:.A..:. k p itievelo• �,•-_ , • is not accompanied by a sufficient le; services`„ -:*ded th- .. .. . :��fs water, sewer and utilities in the s g streei -,: R.,:: ..prban type uses could be accommodated and the chef rking - : * Us would come with the development review. Vane_ wow, She:ep . ,;:. is w' become part of the Comp Plan if the amendment is ed. Sh��� :. mmanzed_theddescn ion of�istrict_N __1 which_is_outlined___ 4i t Exhibit 2 of t e re j ion which explains that this District is intended to become the City Center," al point for the community. She explained, in summary, that Atstaff has prepad a resolution which provides support for the change in the land *IS use and amen the district description and the map in a way that would AIM i:rmaccommod this development. The decision on the zoning is separate, but the '$, x" '`amendment allows enough room for the proposed development to be ,i.,,,,: Bred consistent. She informed the Commission that she thought it was � iiribrtant for them to feel comfortable with this, because whether or not the proposed development is approved, the new designation will continue to be part of the plan. She added that it is Staffs suggestion that the Planning Commission recommend this amendment for approval by the Planning Commission. • • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 5 Chair Peterson commented that the proposed changes are consistent with past reviews of the Planning Commission. • . Commissioner Brooks commented that she felt the rovis'$.s a for P dedication of land for trail systems and revisions t the de--".•••:�lp ref District 1 of ca;,, #iii?`:r.' 'iiialoud. the Comp Plan are necessary. Director Sheldor�� d the`i ` • • ' +,A�.,x,` +fir #::?�, kis`: c. L`k``•Y2`..h."Yi `2 Commissioner Stevenson commented that's' - section ardtr'h : r erciaid d medium densityis a keyportion because it tiff. wit ,4 a new desI9r ,a at"�`tii Y ��i'`" Commissioner Johnston inquired if Exhibits'andv``wtvould become part of the ��ii�iuz;i;� .i�, Comp Plan. Director Sheldon explained that '` 'i " adopts the resolution, the exhibits would be put into the Comp PlateNILAVICk Mr. Jay Anthony indicated that they,.: • ••,�' it-parce `•`,•.: # t are a part of their total PUD which are intended for roam i €pment a was concerned that aai�. `i`zi�`�i ` he would have to go through th entire Pl y' ach of the restaurant developments. Director ShelcVii indicated that uld need to amend the PUD • • �.ni• to add those uses and it wµi ` • be a tic hear ' process. Mr. Anthony commented that he ho r p� l`i"a, rova `` uld be wined at staff level. Director Sheldon explained that;**, ould aO ave tczt ' through a Comp Plan amendment process and that ti-us„ i. e was . d seed when they discussed the reza&part of. ei•••`,.rest. i iz;;�i`:,,., •pct nzi``�. sft.w.•'ii: .. . Cotler John mired if this was the only wording for District 1 in the Camp' use he=,ow here is something else being talked about for District„I 3 �i aot adi €t ed specifically in the proposed wording. Director Sh do � ,ii ..:1W Ast the wording reflects the fact that the primary purpose of the .otmp-Planwhat-wilt-happen-m the future so-va-cant1aml-tends Abe t` 'the focus as op o going parcel by parcel and discussing existing w? development. �``Mr”, Commissioner Obert inquired who will be responsible for the trailways system if it i 4i, ti. µY,`�. • .0•04.104.. approve or the Comp Plan. Director Sheldon indicated that the Parks and mami` ri�i Commission notes where the trail systems cross over land being ,iiiz„iiii iii.: >ii`:h`i.,} i:i"•� ered for development, and the location of trails is established at the `uiiivv. development plan stage. If they do not require Planning Commission review, other techniques may need to be used to relay this information. She added that it could be the responsibility of the Developer if that is what the City decides. • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 19971111 Special Meeting Page 6 Chair Peterson commented that the City is looking at a specific development request and a specific rezoning and removing any inconsistency in the Comp Plan. 410* Commissioner Johnston inquired when the Comp Plan need t " updated. Director Sheldon indicated that it needed to be tot Coue end of 1998. 411:10 lEhMr,*\The Planning Commission discussed some of;;" r concerw : Y, ording of gi V the proposed District 1 narrative. Director S Zion ex I d th din 42.YY,. Yi, •YYYY>' Y#Y..`;.i2`Y'tYk "�22`Ya. indicates what the City would like to achieve: that tre are mar I i ;;ways to implement it. She summarized the intentionY f the 'ording, explain at once the City receives a development request, the' `` •is to make sure that sidewalks get constructed that connect into tl "I �`Y`• r t system. Mr. Anthony requested that the language. softened thatstates, "... development should include provisions for dedicaticz : " to perh'at ...consideration should be given to dedication of land* ` tinted to at a developer could have a situation where you could h of dedicate - Peterson responded by saying that the language doesey, "sho td inclu "` ` it doesn't say "must i `y } riaincluden. i ; . Am hYti Director Sheldon sugg• �YYkY.``^�f t Y 1Y d a rev relate `o general use patterns to say that rim "corercial and medium densitts, f :`should be located in proximity to Hi9a10 . 5. cicall � n s .,;Q ;medium density be changed to higher density: ccause . , '`` not feell is appropriate to place single family houses 'NAM Naitiezt It was.tt gi , us of tfloillanning Commission to leave in the wording proposed forDistrict" > ,ia d that they could make any necessary revisions when they 'datet e o i .: mtlici Men/Carried: Steveroriirasaemle to adopt Resolution No. 502-97 entitled, "Resolution Recommending Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential:t ''t Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the O'Neil 2430 w say 10; Planning Case No. 471-97", including Exhibit 2 as amended. i `>Y YYYY>it:t t IV bel:. ..,. Y;>.. d: 6 ayes, 0 nays Director Sheldon continued with the second part of the request relating to rezoning and reviewed the Staff report dated April 10, 1997. She began by explaining that this request is for rezoning of the O'Neil property from B-1 and R-2 to PUD for • commercial purposes. She briefly reviewed the Staff Report which summarized the 0 Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 7 discussion that occurred at the last Planning Commission meeting where issues were reviewed and consensus by the Planning Commission was reached. She did not review the Comprehensive Plan Amendment because that was jugodiscussed and she noted that traffic and access would be discussed la t She viewed parking, the buffer along County Road H2, the degree of e "``ki `' ent into the wetland buffer, what possible improvements sh Ate do . Th proposal regarding accel and decel lanes and walkways '` na e t }"' ' " g , f € r. theatern complex, concerns of surrounding schools, a comp `n wit:; '° sstin $�€ zoning. She indicated that the Planning Co sion:.on `` arrived at`' "`" it~'on %these issues at the last meeting. She noted':z,.2;. a ..X..},.>e < ,.. c and access 41#jeered to this meeting because the City just receivedthe up0mental traffic report. She indicated that the supplemental report was pr€A;z :` Planning Commission and the traffic consultants, Charlene Zimmetend M,; # ,4r of SRF Consulting, were present to answerany y questions. dded tha ,�'�<.diagram included in the report showed the traffic coup pt P count.4400 �: r the d Vume the peak hour for the streets, and the peak hour 4he•" .rator i.e. tf theater). The new diagram also showed the estimatell numWOkat are expected to occur during the peak hour for the generator etthe Lan' `gge Road/Highway 10 111 intersection, the Edgewoo 9 ve bre '•m the median, and the County Road H2/ Highway 10 intersection, Wsupplmental traffic report also showed how the consultants made adju tints to•the traffic. : nbution based on a region-wide model instead usin :: heh"urrent lotion on adjacent streets. This change t.w T spons }rtluence of the Long Lake Road/Silver ..;.. €> < :v: ions a I-694} 4,,,' :: ' ce the` aters are expected to be a regional draw. It shot : • he vole eS o-Iighway 10 are reduced and more traffic travels west and sOi;: µ` :k;. Coun` oa:j2 and Long Lake Road. More traffic goes through the C `' "k' _ `��•,,�»,��,, o. '< . H2/Lon re Road intersection, and the level of service would * nggoj S tpeak hour of the street. This change in level of i'vice means � pnaone-second delay at tl'iat intersection. She added that 4 the consultants Fro` ': ked by the Planning Commission to look at alternative land , uses in the rep z u ing existing zoning or the existing Comprehensive Plan } },� designation anotherpossible land uses that have been considered. She m....1.."4indicated thatve scenarios were used: existing zoning (duplexes on H-2 and mat" 4neighbo business on the rest of the property), the Comprehensive Plan 1 } 02gfan (single family homes on the entire parcel), townhomes, apartments IlleParporate office/offices on the entire parcel. She reported that the use producing the highest amount of traffic during the peaks was the existing zoning. She added that the residential scenarios indicated less traffic would be produced than the current proposal. i Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 • Special Meeting Page 8 She added that the consultants were also asked to research what was the peak of the generator. It was found to be from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. She added that the intersections were re-tested using this peak and there is enough capa. for the U- turns to be accommodated. She briefly explained, for the benefit of the audien `es wha't'`` riii d Unit P (PUD) zoning appWal }`a "d :. merit that Development PUD district is: the �of a sp. �1�? ��" has a plan and description that goes with it tt ntrols. kind evA main' that occurs with certain stipulations. She in t th*there are tl tliWfor the PUD process: the conceptual stage wh �'re right now), ALA" P P 9 ( �„r ��� `�. development stage (public hearings will be he'd a .t this stage by the Planning Commission and City Council) and the final pt t, .an administrative review. Director Sheldon continued by briefly descrit hg iteediaatthe Planned Unit Development document (Exhibit 1 of Ord',7„..f, No. r.v . uggested that another item be added: that all utiliti Y.. under . ' She noted that if the PUD document is approved `• pp b�ilrt •ti�i#�it wo 'ibe recorded against the property so that the control ,<tsted woo `1 ` govern the property and would be attached to the PUD; esignai. Sti , "that it is Staff's recommendation, with thestitipulatic# in plac `v'that the Planning Commission • recommend that the PUzz``••• ppro` and th, forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Steve on con . staff for the way the information for this •••:, a�:h: , rem was pr- g Chair P• greed and commented that it was very zed a' be l:Ticult to handle this much detail without such the x:: :tr•rts. NEON* •a$vv�ryvi��}i4ti� 2xvv�ii>.L,`:.Z:$2: Mr. An.. ny fr q ' ed about a landscaping (#10 of the Planned Unit Daprrienf4 requirement that the property owner shall be made available $41-:bng the Highway 10 frontage for the City or City's agent to 4; >mplement the d €,s : ieme. Mr. Anthony was concerned with the footage the site :;Lplan provided kiiiithig area. Director Sheldon indicated that their proposed setback .::};::;t from the right4.way to the parking lot is 30 feet. Am4„ {�z••a`.fix?:µa. Vii;` `Chair Peron asked the applicant if there had been any changes with the plan .:r. z` s last discussion. Mr. Anthony indicated that there had not been any The Planning Commission continued with discussion on the traffic study. Commissioner Stevenson commented that the report verified a hunch the • Planning Commission had about the current zoning versus the proposal and that • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 9 the way it is zoned now actually produced more traffic than the current proposal. The difference is when the peak for developed property would occur. The peak for the different development would occur at different times, but the overjimpact is less. He was also concerned with the traffic impact on Longake. e`-d and County Road H2 and how it compares to the prey'•us Charlene Zimmer, Principal for SRF ConsultirO dressed •: x n indicatin. that the only changes that have occurred in "study h do: iistri n of traffic on Long Lake Road and County Ro: :Tx 2 th insulted 136'04410i .1 sed the regional traffic forecasting model to distrii : nps. She brie ed the results as noted in the revised traffic study. S s fined that what occurred is that the volumes did increase on CountyRoa.' :<: �,;� Lake Road from the last report from five to nine percent. She noted thatx * j zRoad H2 would have x�xzxzx�..`.xx::z�; an increase in traffic of 11 percent daily.• _ xxx,x <x.;;xx.. N x.•:: iv The Planning Commission and SRFCon� .cussed: arious traffic routes and distribution. .{.p:�;.z�` 'xzY xxxx ,,.. • Commissioner Johnsto xxxxxx. ua n; pressed� ome cor,:i�em with the safety of U-turns and indicated he did not see *d ,x�, �"ress��n the stir. Ms. Zimmer indicated that two of the three intersectior re sign;: 1 d whi.•.1.k.lfrianages the traffic flow and, they- ore, reduces :, a number o 4g.. f ;, r • the s.•ggestion by the Police Department to align entrance of the theater and signalize it. He asked this ,m .i t the traffic flow. Ms. Zimmer indicated that they had nQ: : ;,{ is flow y sis along Highway 10 with Edgewood Drive being a si Q4s, Shbelieved, however, that the level of congestion, to a a extent -d by-how-the-signals-are-timed-and-how-they gress. lithe expressed :'� of the concerns with adding a signal would be that it would Azib } complicate the #gsion of traffic and studies would need to be done to AK+ determine whether or not a signal could be effectively added on Highway 10. With regard to th ;`1 w of traffic, the opinion of the consultant was, that it was better to the . theater entrance to right-in, right-out because it helps on a high volume :x:::.xxx mak r ;; x xxxx: Aas Highway 10. Regarding left turns, the consultant added that it is ��\.:Y\�kx`YxYYxxx.rxi�\k2 ::mer-to have a four-legged intersection and it is better to have it signalized. Ms. Zimmer expressed some concerns with the number of access points because the more access points you have the more impact you have on safety and traffic flow. In terms of getting in and out of the site, a signalized, four-legged intersection is the . desirable solution. But in terms of the traffic flow on Highway 10, there is a Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 IP Special Meeting Page 10 question that hasn't been answered because you have to look at the signal progression along that corridor before you can make that determination. Discussion continued regarding the traffic study. Ms. Zimme' 1, ade'v•v comment that most people who live in the immediate vicinit of the ,,`._"' P P X, p,;:``;':h heater would use the secondary streets instead of using the ram thort g " ,.to go to the theater. e .�k: :..,. 9 s. .,,. .9 V.W.WRii.Mq .4k. 40 fiat he i:t Commissioner Stevenson asked if MnDO % uld 1?::',, rely to chingi „ttral pattern of the existing signals in the area du f:. i.: heater times. mer indicated that it would depend upon the type o ::::.!: _''4 at is installed. She explained that some of the newer signals are,. :d `µ onsive and thus it would occur automatically while the older signals, ere ti been specifically set, may be more difficult to change ,x ,401,:14Chair Peterson inquired about the:: feit.... the n. i��hborhood near County Road H2. Ms. Zimmer summa ed that " �'.Q alread has high traffic r. levels, so the increase in traff 'nay or, y not< 1 eable to people. She • added that, certainly those.•wo live d ctly on aunty Road H2 will feel the impact xz::.a P of traffic. For this kind ofi#10id us;They do n expect traffic to move off County Road H2 to the adjoini ..4 reets ': gh the �-ighborhood. 4''' tali ..; Dev: hNy. ase, 5 klba Drivpes3n :• which direction would people who live teiti .; `: a west go wh eaving the theater. Ms. Zimmer responded the €m them % ,,„ .t ,.nty Road H2 and Long Lake Road, unless theystay on kg The "1 did not believe that people will get off of County Road F2n < :: ake Roadand go further into the neighborhood. rcair lse ers , , Zimmer agreed that traffic issues are one of the major :,ek : Y;:.. rte. 1 tiemotional issue $ g to development. am There were no further questions relating to traffic. 1 Mank ;`..:. icomm er Obert brought up the requirement in the Planned Unit Alt It. ent stipulations that the developer is to place remote cameras in the Nitodortg lot. Mr. Anthony expressed that this was an unusual and inappropriate request. Commissioner Obert asked where the requirement came from. Director Sheldon indicated that it was a conclusion from the interviews that she had with Police Departments in other cities who have larger theaters. Commissioner Obert felt that these types of cameras were not necessary because they were not • effective and they could not be used in court. He added that perhaps "dummy" • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 11 cameras could be used. Mr. Anthony assured the Planning Commission, that as owners of the theater, security problems, if any, would be addressed. He added that he did not feel it should be a PUD requirement. It was suggestec py the Planning Commission that the requirement to place remote , era 'n the parking lot of the theater be removed from the PUD requirements and<� ,. ..•Aft be replaced with "....shall put in place security measures if it:: ;` term Mounds View Police Chief that there are persistent security *ems as this PUD" As Air viddit, Chair Peterson asked Mr. Anthonyif he hat d a "ince to review . w. requirements of the PUD and if, other than t er ment of the remQt cameras in the parking lot, were the other items accepk Anthony responded that he has had a chance to review them and fou . table. Sandy Simmons, 5041 Edgewood Dri a ti} aired w en ice buildings would be built and why they could nod �cted afito ame time as the :.?>���<�.. :fix„ }'S'�" theater. Commissioner Obert re that aff had researched this matter and has determined that vacancyz :`• ice building, of the same size proposed, was five perce.`• . Ther*fe, th o expect a problem getting • the space leased. Chair.P son a ed Ms. `' mons if the provisions regarding fencing and other scree,," ."ere e -ptable. lc s. Simmons responded that the office buildings are their .tfer. 1,7i Co nussioner :"�on asks$`x, :% . gplicant what was the time frame for opening l e the= - • w muc` i" me would they need to lease office space. Mr. An {Xa"``'" A{'resse•< < opes to be open by Christmas of this year. If they miss f ame,Fig** pect them to be open in June, 1998. Commissionervensormmented that if they opened in December, they may no "e fit r o space leased, however if they opened in June of next year, they may have` . •: " [. ce-leased and,-therefore-construction-of the-office- 4`v`• **buildings woulcf%mtpat the same time as the theater. Al ii.,$ `� CommissionObert asked if the City could mandate the timing of construction by ming; PUD or wout,• e let the market itself drive the construction. Mr. Wendell Smith �w ,:..k forme , `,� .a � ; �,�� Commission a certain portion of an office building must be pre-leased ` � 5 L, . : ,,.*.2 aining a loan. "vamIt was the consensus of the Planning Commission to let the market decide the timing of the construction for the office buildings. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 • Special Meeting Page 12 Linda Chase, 5244 Skiba Drive, inquired what would be the length of the fence along County Road H2. Director Sheldon illustrated on the plan where the fence is ' proposed to be located. Y` P. At Sr> Dave Chase, 5244 Skiba Drive, inquired if the 9a showrOfittlil an was a walkway. The Commission indicated that there: ' • ap irtiek and that the intention is not to have foot traffic access to C, i i y Road ,�}y: x n. .:. �:: ti It was the Planning Commission's consensu x include a statemdi D, under item #9, that says the area shown for R> }; :•:.Y .... y buildings shall' taintained as a buffer area with existing vegetation until.,;'S‘,:fi :as the offices are built with the specific dimension to be determined wit ..Yr ent plan stage. Nali Commissioner Brooks left at 9:55 m. w,T;:. ; ;"`Y�r•�` ��;�. .µY.4. '•2`M•M,.•L.•••• �i` Mr. Anthony asked the Commiss } Y.; } YY; ip : 'alx ,�ss w10 be to include the 4.restaurants as part of this PUD bmittalziilD ` on suggested that in the yYr a.� ky,`YY:`.C^yw:.YY}?r . PUD requirements under aliov uses;fir parcri,,• and B, it would read, "restaurant" with a footnot%,would; ate that thalfe size and parking requirements IP would be determined at WON of developent plan stage, and the ability to develop the restaurant:bald be cojrngentbn submittal of a traffic study. She added that this wout ' needeciY` Yt the intersections would continue to .Y'y :YfitYYY..i..t.Y`.`..`.. fur # at an ace a level of ce She commented that the initial concept 4 �,Y g , ti.�� }�.rou fi•f����•••�• d thosses noted, but the plans that were presented .:�`zYziYi`Y`YY, to the E g orhoo dw ' tanning Commission did not show the restaurants, altho i t`'`. d talk Y.• . •Director Sheldon expressed that she is conceped.wah tom„ling re nts at such a late date. She noted, however, that lam'}.Y... ... ,...; � kW sh ai ' • : -ction o this type of use from the neighborhood but she is ;r(Oficerned-w' Y` .:•acts; She-indicated that-if traffrc-numbers-could-be- x"obtained in timatfO a Council meeting, the proposed restaurants could be g' included in the bliir hearing notices. MB ' "'"``4 The Planni Commission explained to Mr. Anthonythat if the restaurants were not iiiw;: ; :v=:ksted or/, PUD at this time, he would need to apply for a PUD amendment in 111 < ` i; evelop them. However, if they were added now, no amendment would be Nr• . NXSary to the PUD unless a use other than a restaurant is desired. Mr. Anthony requested that perhaps other uses, including restaurants, could be added to the PUD at this time. Director Sheldon again expressed concern with informing residents who were present at previous meetings and with the traffic studies that would need to be done. It was the consensus of the applicant and the Planning • Commission to add the restaurant uses to the PUD proposal. The Planning • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 13 Commission requested that, prior to review by the City Council, traffic numbers be provided for the restaurant uses. David Chase, 5244 Skiba Drive, inquired if parking requirements old change if the restaurants were added. Director Sheldon indicated Ow*" .. ad not yet examined the two parcels, but that they could ac parki rako4' skOF the PUD and Parpm a•4`..: the applicant would have to size the restaura � t the e ,:i.r.., restaurants within the limits of the parcels. .v"! '. VISE,; , : >s Mr. Anthony inquired when the PUD docu o be sined. `egg'• 'had some concerns with Louise O'Neil's signature::!.vg ;. }wired. Director Sheldon b indicated that this issue could be discussed •. �.:Sys. Council Liaison Koopmeiners joined the meetin. - 0:90 p. M.> x"i< . Motion/Second: Obert/Stevenson to ado }1 es.' . ,3 503-9: ''entitled, "Resolution ki.Recommending Approval of a Rezonin'•• om B-. � -2 to tined Unit Development (PUD), and of a General Concept PI �'fo Co a �er� ' n the O'Neil Property, 2430 • Highway 10; Planning Case No. 4,7: 7" as., ``mended }" .,.• ��> Mr. Anthony requested-t if they`' uld n ;timet action taken on the request in the time rame discuss `t 't the re:4 < " "s be removed from the PUD. Director S = • , indicat ',`- could :=a`�•:••"negotiate with Council regarding that Motion Cam ; ,>,"' , 0 na . w ChairPete a ' ;x $wed the applicant that this item would be discussed at the .4a7Coufl :nh.; . •: : y-Gaff was not-sure-of ttre specific date a S AO Tl was a 15-minut `intermission. Nuommi 4 Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 • Special Meeting Page 14 7. Planning Case No. 477-97 Silver Lake Road and Highway 10 di Applicant: D.W. Jones, Inc. `; .�; Request for a Rezoning from B-2 to Planned Unit Develo ment tetx`. `` 'gas station with fast food and car wash components; restaurant; senior:• ' ing ""%:•';'.' "'•, rid office ' building. A_� l` �ti.: slY ` rte.' "'it#� ; r"` ; l Representatives of the applicant, D.W. Done ` i re represented`. meeting. <. .x:.>.,: Director Sheldon reviewed the staff report • x<.ed A �-• 7. She reminded the Commission that there was a lengthy dis9a on at thea ting regarding this project and the general consensus ofr; .i < ng ComMiton was that the overall combination of uses appee •su'if :tt4pne exception; the gas station. She believed their main conce ias the;0iiiker;`' �" 1'Stations already existing in Mounds View. Another concern expressed byt mission was the amount of development on the site an4 t e exte that the`development encroaches into the II wetland buffer. She ren i; ided the .>```• mission iat at their last meeting, they directed Staff to prepar ivo resp ns: orw: r approval and one for denial. She informed the Comm1ss 1 that, it ..., .s... on of approval, the main point of `" `' ,.,,:•.,.3...z . ".- Area 9 studyfor Highway 10 indicates e ` s's is thaaarch d �. .: 9 Y t pose ; � ..:suitable or the area. The reasons cited in support of ap .tide: tri` : .,`$.t:`�: • development is supported by a recent consultant study c.J airamof uses tOlgould be feasible and marketable in the Area 9 Sectio o H 10; 1PRoides a mixture of uses that appear compatible with the roup * n the"development, the uses are complimentary to one ,: tc her,1he tri:••• :.slows that theHighway 1-01 Silver LaVeRoad-intersection Airwill continue to Qt1 at an acceptable level of service; and the development . ` meets the spec* criteria in the PUD district. O `,\ Director She7n explained that in the resolution of denial, one of the points 1gpncer§. relationship to the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan that refers to :.r >i3E and facilitating development of commercial activities which are • "` ��'``"'•`` fementa to those that are already existing and with respect to all of the uses except the gas station, she felt the request has been met. With respect to the gas station, the resolution suggests the Planning Commission make a finding that there is an excess of this type of use in the surrounding community. Additional concerns are the possible detrimental affects of an additional gas station in a community that i already has six and that the traffic study has been questioned by the Ramsey Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 • Special Meeting Page 15 County traffic engineer. He feels that there would be stacking problems on Silver Lake Road. The market study submitted by the applicant indicates that there is an unmet demand for gas stations but the market to supply the demand.'•_ igger than Mounds View. The study may need to be revised to include. u the:: s stations in the travel route rather than just in Mounds View. She brie,.y .t . , red the specific points listed in the resolution of denial: the num! *gas: x r . : e possibility of mowenvironmental problems with underground stot ` tanks, t,,.,,,,, ,*,i :: :v.. f :: ,'" 2i. encroachment into the wetland buffer, the fe a ':g of thezii nning ' sion.<t a there is too much development on the site, a 1the i i: ation fro it y County Traffic Engineer. Mr. Mike Black, Land Use Planner for Royal U' Shoreview, addressed the Planning Commission. He introduced t `'`'`othe i :- . atives of D.W. Jones, Inc., that were present: George Winieck :, N Agenc a: nd Chuck Durand, 5-D Limited, and Skip Ducheneau, re e: n .W. Jona; Iiic. Mr. Black stated that there havea poi � s�xmx a'.ing the buffer area, density, and the architecturaliinpatibii with Clings. He added that they• are all valid issues and ash the Planning Ccmision that they would be addressed in greater detat •rhe.ag lopment;Stage. He stated that they were there to ask for consid ` on of a kept P:,::t) along with a rezoning. He indicated that they,a r ed the Planing,,;, mission's consideration of the total P and w- x epared' _IMO any portion of the package. He assured `> ssiori• 1h a ro e PUD came with conditions, they would be I and j led to the Council. Mr. Black expressed his concern with the:ktl resole :3,egard to the comment from the Ramsey County Traffic.<Eng aer. ,ince h : learned of the stacking concerns on Silver Lake Ro Chea n �:u` ff - is no prepared to respond at this time but assured them that • y trac ass '< s .:= :amsey County would be addressed. 1. r ,siv Chair Peterson tresponded to the issue regarding stacking on Silver Lake Road .0111 and informed audience that he has observed this problem on a regular basis „,Axe ; µ r. Ror ;Schmidt, Amoco Station, 2800 Highway 10, commented that the entire `_ ; : �'•� . O situation should be looked at and agreed with Chair Peterson that . ?k a traffic problem at that intersection. Mr. Black and the Planning Commission briefly discussed specific traffic scenarios at Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road and how they related to stacking. Director • Sheldon suggested that perhaps the applicant could meet with Dan Solar, Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, to discuss the issue. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 • Special Meeting Page 16 Mr. Ralph Durand, 5-D Limited, addressed the Planning Commission commenting that they have met extensively with Mr. Solar who specifically located the curbs cuts and indicated where they should be. He also assured,* Planning Commission that any traffic concerns would be addressed. e Mr. Black addressed the issue of their being unt .g to #fps station from the proposal. He pointed out that the gas sta.i;,, s therela . • e unused .< • market on Highway 10. He also addressed t:'..1'.%:environrntal c0 ind .; 'r indicated that today, with the technologytha ."i p " "'� i�v, 4 sed,�,�3e rotectir� `•"�`•• �.. and contamination far exceeds what was used int: j1e �; r� and he does ncst� �e this to be an issue. He also addressed the wetla •tssue stating that 9 of 11 cities surveyed do not even have a wetland bt req ement and that the City consultant's plan (i.e. SRF Highway 10-Area€}t stu•`':' `:•`' " �€�.`��•••.elmost as much z zCk?zazz zz:.. Z�, encroachment into the buffer as the appllr shows Olt t cc acept plan. `2Y k"< Mr. George Winiecki, 2732 Hi h., li i.: r " 99 a ' ; e. screed the Sue of environmental concerns regarding storage tan ` He in :ate4 t'. . <r �:� # >nsurance industry provides coverage for pollutio �� �"• `�'```��'`'""�`�i'`4"` eakage�i""oblem itis inexpensive for customers • with the new technology. .,:r `Y v P Chuck Durand, 5-D Li tied inf•• "r x L: the emission that State of Minnesota perio. scally taxes , to asst �` yap issues and they also have strict co: •� re ardi: `` `` :� " 9 � f tanks a COm"itss e *pressed his concern that, if another gasoline station goes i? t xisting �w Mounds View be forced to close. If so, would the City th. : ,...., <� � .� :� e < xto d al witt ti n up issues. Mr. Winiecki indicated that there are corita::;.a�.:'.21w:;`2Y;t:}2"2.y..o4:'LY iJ�:S:l� ,kjould`impose regarding clean-up and believes that clean-up is ianissue. ,,.. siiliw sodie zz . z>., 1 Chair Petersorn`ingliired if we had received any new information regarding the I N diy. Director Sheldon indicated that a wetland delineation would _;�x� wetland boun `4 have to be cab and added that the boundary that will decide whether or not the `Y K evelo n�ecan occur within a certain area is governed bythe DNR. It was her .:�,zz�� .�� P `` ~ ? �`w�:. iii that this issue be discussed at the development stage. `zvs•.`iw` a Commissioner Stevenson expressed his concern with the amount of water usage with the addition of another car wash. The applicant informed the Commission that 60 percent of the water used is recaptured. Director Sheldon indicated that they could get an opinion of the Public Works Director regarding this issue. III • • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 17 Mr. Ralph Durand, 5-D Limited, addressed the Commission and summarized what they feel to be the status of this request. He indicated that at the last meeting, it was his understanding that the Commission needed the malts of the Highway 10, Area 9, study in order to make a recommendat;� q_ rega ng this request. He indicated that the Commission also r quested`}`z O ��" ormation regarding the wetland buffer and there was dis n reg-, $:.• ` •_:• - car wash. But he did not interpret it to be a contingency be - their ca.� • be differ` than other car washes. With regard to the S L. report, :` ` ha f i! firm �M1 is, that theyare proposing preciselywhat th=;< •ort i commend: £`� �7: Commissioner Stevenson responded bys=. �"R =� cificall p � � the report did r� y indicate service station and, in fact, they actin`. •`a:+ore services stations would not be an appropriate use for this site. Mr. ed that SRF Consulting indicated that the corner should be a food a;l fuee :�E• f l lse/impulse commercial use. Both Commissioners -nson aBemie disagreed L.. 'rt Wiz:}i i iz;ii with Mr. Durand's interpretation that .•1< r.:.,• ..Led use is' • e isely what the report �• store ">•• aaemle t tided to the fact that the had indicated for this comer. Coar��i proposal fails to meet a couple;Q p ants nI . {th not all of these uses :ice' ���"�`�,�`•�. could be built on the site, but �€a`combin . o n of or ree is definitely possible as • opposed to the applicant's.zpm osal t.$' includ-'•:.four uses; and that there is a need to consolidate a M 8•ints �" o Highw .'10. >N ArMr. 'urand conti •. -d }'th hiss:-,,:,0`.; . menting that they are aware of the b ,g_ , sting th- .E _ . `'s stud y' that 9 of 11 other communities do not .:....:.> .•A< uffer. . : ,$ § a ented t' are still respecting 55 percent of the ,�� :, {, Y P 9 bu .: } ':ry k. w ` ti`r:ti WAF Director; asked f :: nfication on the comment regarding additional sew/Wt` stat o eing an appropriate use for the comer. It was determined Aplihhe_list fr a" Stevenson-had-obtained-this information came from a r'� workshop where. x - from the community were asked for their opinions, and therefore, it wa o •a conclusion of the Towle Report done in conjunction with the N.,. SRF Study. �: ?<ri:•ogiztr.r. Wi i� commented on the number of restaurants located on Highway 10 and `"� llI �1$• wing Commission's willingness to add more, while they are not in favor of '••�` zd rig another gas station. He said he believes the advantages of this development far outweigh the disadvantages. Commissioner Johnston stated that his major concerns are traffic and the 110 wetland delineation. Commissioner Obert expressed that he is also concerned with possible stacking and access problems. Mr. Black again brought up SRF's Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 • Special Meeting Page 18 Report and the conclusion that this use would be a prime use for this corner. He again assured the Commission that any traffic issues will be addressed as they proceed through the process. Director Sheldon briefly addressed theffic concerns made by the Commission and the Commission aged th.,4the issue is not an intersection concern but the ability to get 'Nand outn € te. Chair Peterson expressed that his main concern is wi `te co # ;;; "``}} " a e of adding P ��:: 9 9...v another gas station in Mounds View, not thettself butiwrso;,had some concerns with site density. 01 Chair Peterson asked the Commission for iliiiptisto either approve of eny the request. Nimmemat, Commissioner Stevenson expressed that a thin N*44. d a PUD, however he feels the applicant needs to present furt I h impu.1 "`�2:.� "{„ r the Highway 10/ Silver Lake Road corner for review b :fission. Oir . 1:14e. r , zY�#b h ;` ;�<�• Mr. Black communicated to theOanninwoltffitpluttftt they have given a lot of consideration and study to this> lan anciexpre•`sat they would much rather move on to the Council witharecom► ndation m the Planning Commission that supports their efforts ased tone of dell. He added that the approval could be subject to cert "conditi, >of theyoltinning Commission. He reminded the Commission that th0411r, are de concept stage. He is aware there is a lot ` rk to do. • ld his poit re could be many reasons to deny this project and. en g if they d6 not satisfy the City's concerns. He added th ' J,•• es the o ould rather hear their concerns in a positive tone as oppos commeagr f denial. S. v�r ii:: ii . .i i Motion/S, ori'd"Siast ohn on to approve Resolution No. 505-97 (Option #1), entitled4esotutio ding-to-the CityCouncil App-roval of a Rezoning from B-2 - - .r:, may,�}.�.:..r..>. to Planed Unit DevelcE 'y(PUD), and of a General Concept Plan for Commercial and Reoilaential Uses as R uested by D.W. Jones, Inc.; Planning Case No. 477-97". . $x Commissio Brasaemle suggested that contingencies need to be added to the 0. ;;;0iUD docent and/or resolution. The Commission concluded that contingencies r ' Yziid to be added that relate to traffic and the community image "'biz` i`�` ectural design of the buildings). Director Sheldon suggested that perhaps the gasoline station could be backed up to the corner so that the pumps are interior to the site and the outside is landscaped and bermed, putting more character into the building and creating a more landmark-type building. The Commission also added a contingency regarding minimizing impact on the wetland buffer, addressed • the concerns with the wetland boundaries, and added that utilities be placed 0 Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 19 underground. Director Sheldon assured the Planning Commission that once the revisions have been made they would receive copies for their review and comment. 410 Mr. Black stated that he is in agreement with the PUD docuaent ''the exception of the issue relative to trailways. He added that L`}z$ ��a this issue can be brought up at the Council level. Pi.`-, ` x`i•`a+ �z` `•,,,. ' The PlanningCommission continued their di�ssion reg rng` iNank g iiim should be added to this request. For the item0 the F C documei `` }}`` h } wetland issues, Director Sheldon suggested `'" e owin wording`'� be used: "At the time of approval of these sti ulatto e wetland boundary was not set, that it will be set from the study that will subm to ;pt the development review stage and that at that time, the City 41evallatOlqr the amount of density allowed by this PUD needs to bewail u ted to takey $account a different wetland boundary than what was ava 1a ; <a t time of* .dual of the stipulations", which may mean that he deep be reduced. . v . ; ' ', �ix T Commissioner Obert expressed that t feels sway 10-Area 9 study is very • important to the City and <#his dev slopment crucial in putting the program together. t"` !, .i``' Chai Stevenson " .-nted t p•` t. -s the concern to be far more than im 'of the gat*!*,He re t he hasn't forgotten letters and citizen crn egardn ., ncem gadding another gas station to the community. He�� i e .the concen�; e.the use itself. Chair Pei * ked t� ience of they had any additional concerns. ; - Ron-Sc a o-Station-2800-Ht hwa 10 referred to-the SRF-Study, .<,$ age 29. He at x`rwve are really considering the true spirit and intent of the At redevelopment, ats which is to make a signature development for Section 9 and . k. are the oals �the studybeingaddressed with this development. ;Cd,„. arrie44a7es, 2 nays. Commissioner Stevenson expressed that he does not f�tunsed for the corner is the proper use for the PUD. Commissioner Obert exp i 1h*t he feels the process should be slowed down so that they can make a more informed decision. His main concern is with the architectural character of the Section 9 corridor and that this would be the first development using the Section 9 study. 0 Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 • Special Meeting Page 20 8. Staff Report/Information Items a. The Planning Commission Bylaws were not approved by the CittCouncil. They want to revisions to the provision that would recd a C,r,:•.' issioner z; applications to be referred to the Planning .� ommiss "• commendation before selecting candidates. Director SVArl indicia,` ' k. would have revised language at their next meeting:. k:kkk:,: : { v b. The ordinance regarding tall grass pa d seco `ead i`•.`i t cha• ' `�`s. c. The ordinance regarding day cares ink busi: s/industrial '� 000 passed second reading without chant`,• :k � s.. Y Y`YkA d. Director •Sheldon distributed materials"`µY k.. Y• from the first session of the x .- U of M Design Course. k\k`e,k:k,k:'Y• 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner Repor 4 < } : :yA,�kk.: Ci,..:k"YYk'ikkkyv.• ....:::::.v.7 <>3ykY.ik"YkYy::kY>Y::,2v.�``:`;. ' `So :k�: kk':.::kYYk;::yy:2. y.::':: Members present at the April 2, 1ta1;. ng included Commissioners Brooks, Johnston, Obert, Miller,Brasae ,k nd Chair Peterson. Also present were Director SheldonPlanni ssocia Erfcson, Council Liaison ..Y:kY`::.y`3: Koopmeiners and Recordit ecreta i enesc0 k k A'-v- Members present at theSpril 2, 1.997. agen. ''Meeting (immediately following the regut r meeting) in ,i : Comr sS & ohnston, Obert, Miller, Brasaemle, St on and . terson (O„" oner Brooks left the meeting at 10:10 Y presekirector etdon, Planning Associate ssociate Ericson, Recording •Se escti dit Liaison Koopmeiners. 42 : Vk Chair,,k!? ? #so rephat he and Commissioners Miller and Johnston att e` "the e Basics class. He found it to be very valuable, with a lot of . 3kkk new ihformatio} ice:y„-so received materials on Comp Plan revisions which will ie provided tot rer Commissioners at their next meeting. 4;t ` joumment 4�� kk. Sill < . ' dge :•Y�krk;�: ere b nno further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting : '4"kk kYkkk:.yk,\.•k•:t�+tk kkt••{••::::k;• . YY::k4 y mat 12:22 a.m. •k�:::::YY�::::::: :ti= ::�,kms.. w::z<ak k aw:00. Agrow Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sheldon III Community Development Director