HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-04-1997 • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 4, 1997
7:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
April 2, 1997 (Regular Meeting)
April 2, 1997 (Special Agenda Session)
April 16, 1997 (Special Meeting)
4. 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
5. Planning Case No.485-97
7720/7730 Silver Lake Road
Variance to allow a 34 foot lot width,where 50 feet is required
Applicant: Glenn Karlen
6. Staff Reports/Information Items
7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners.Reports
8. Adjournment
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 784-3055
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\AGENDA6.4
•
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Meeting Date: June 4, 1997
Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Planning Case No.: 485-97
Request: 16-foot Variance from Minimum Lot Width Requirement
Petitioner: Glenn Karlen •
Location: 7720 - 7730 Silver Lake Road
PIN No. 006-30-23-34-0008
Zoning/Land Use: R-2, Single- and Two-Family Residential/Twinhome
Applicable Regulations: Section 1107.03;Zero lot line subdivision requirements
Section 1125.02, Subd. 2; Criteria for granting variances
Attachments: Planning Application
Zoning Map
Site Plan
• Letter from Applicant
Planning Commission Resolution No. 510-97
Background:
The applicant, Glenn Karlen, has requested a variance to reduce the minimum lot width from 50 to 34
feet for proposed Parcel B located at 7720 -7730 Silver Lake Road. (Refer to the attached site plan.)
The property is improved with a twinhome which was constructed in 1978 prior to the enactment of the
current regulations governing twinhomes and zero lot line development. Mr. Karlen would like to
convert the building to owner-occupied units and feels the zero lot line subdivision would advance this
transition. Since the twinhome is located off the center-line of the lot, the two lots would have widths
of 56 and 34 feet if the property was subdivided as planned. The 16-foot variance requested is the
minimum needed for the lot split.
Analysis:
The twinhome's construction in 1978 predated the zero lot line subdivision requirements, thus the
applicant did not cause the situation necessitating the variance. Granting of the variance will not result
in any visible physical change in the appearance of the twinhome. If anything, conversion of the
twinhome's rental units to owner-occupied dwellings may improve outward appearance and
strengthen the neighborhood. Deed restrictions shall be recorded if the property subdivision is
approved which address uniformity of design and maintenance and reconstruction in the event of
partial or full destruction resulting from fire or natural disaster.
' Recommendation:
Approve Resolution No. 510-97 granting a variance to allow a reduction in the minimum lot width
requirement for proposed Parcel B from 50 feet to 34 feet to accommodate a zero lot line subdivision
at 7720 - 7730 Silver Lake Road for Glenn Karlen.
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\485-97\KARLEN.RPT
U1flo .
0 MCO-_- DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONW 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112
•r*rmttst'4' 612-784-3055
612-784-3462 -FAX
Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form -
Applicant Information
Name of Applicant Glenn K a r l e n Telephone 612-6 3 9-9 8 8 3
Address 2510 Wexford Court 612- 639-0825
Fax
New Brighton, MN. 55112
- 5(41- 35' -79g0
Interest in Property(check appropriate box) -
CK Owner of Property --- -
❑ Contract for Deed Owner .. . _ - --
❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager
a 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. ip
Property Description/Proposal
AddressorGeneralLocation 7720-7730 Silver Lake Road, Mounds View, MN.55112
Legal Description Karlen ' s Addition , Lot 1 , Block 1
Property Identification#(PIN#) 0 6 3 0 2 3 3 4 0 0 0 8 3
#of Acres
Current Zoning
Present Use Type of Application
a Undeveloped/Vacant 0 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $200
a Single Family Dwelling a Rezoning $200/ac;min$200 max$1000
QII DuplexiTwo Family Dwelling 0 Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit*
❑ Multi-family Dwellings ❑ Minor Subdivision $150
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment 0 Planned Unit Development(PUD) $350
0 Industrial Establishment 0 PUD Amendment • $150
0 Other(explain) a Conditional Use Permit R-1,R-2$75;all others$200
Vice R-1,R-2$75;all others$200
O Code Appeal $75
❑ ---- Develop Review/Site Plan $100/ac;min$100 max$500
-- - . - -- ❑ _--.- Wetland Alteration Permit $50+deposit*
O Wetland Buffer Permit 7
❑ Floodplain Permit - -_ $200 .
❑ 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 0 Abstract to Torrens
Description of Proposal Owner seeks approval of 34 foot width of Parcel B
in lieu of 50 foot lot requirement.
BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED I tiE AND AC • TE.
Signature of Applicant
Name of Applicant(typed/printed) Glenn K a r l e n
Signature of Property Ownerde
-
Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) Glenn Karl e n •
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date of Submittal
Date of Acceptance -/ —q 7 Assigned to:
Planning Case No. 1-4-`6 S— Ci ) 60-day Limit 120-day limit
•
Fees Paid Account# Check# -
Application: �'S
Park Dedication:
Deposits:
'Other:
Total:
C!,OFFICEIWPWWWPDOCS1ADMINTORMS1DEVApP.FOR 1
N. . •• N e0
60 Boss I plug
°�'� 8070 8071 �� 8071 8068
1\ r 80408075 8060 8059 8050 8055 8060
' `� • I. 6030 8045 803 8045 8040 8039 8042 8045 8032
621 \' . . 8032 �� 8:
8026 8025 8029
\• 18020 8025 8016 8015 a 8025 8018 8011 8000 0
I I N. Is
=' 8005--,8005 8016 8009 8006
I I 7990 11985 8004 7981 7990 0 7981 7990 0
798q+ 7970 �� 7980 7969 7980
n tiQ 7960 7965 7960 C 7959 7970 7965
I I N 7950 7955 co
7956 7949 7954 7959 7966
( I I 0, N 7940 7945 7946
o N 7934 7933 7950
P .
O17932 7930, 7935 7930
, 6
c,-4 c n m n of
in
.. a _ 7Q N N N 7900 7901 7900 N r N 7900
_J 7897 N
- 1. �"�I�� ,
Eft La D 177
7830 z 7835 7890 7887 {_i, d �` Illtrr N 7891 N N 7890
7820: 7825 7880 7979 aso ^ m ,0 7876 Z 7885 7866
751•J 7815 7870 7865 - 78so N n B2 7870 0 7877 7854
.y 105 860 7851 7850 7821 B400 ,A ) �� 7842
Oa 7850- 7841 ` I �+ Ha 7801fr.
�� 7851 7830 C
u1 x .•...ol��.- - 7791 3 R-4 4:-3fl,�' 7920
7821 Lu
lElll��!�N 7781 `TA7810 FQ
(fLl:=�ft(:�: All 4'
7800
4
:,:::,:, bK:,,,.. Igiliffininsmir B-2 R-4
_ - .. _.....�..::', WIMP�� 7729 PMEN ram < 4 $a
'�
- - - r. ® C 7801
�- ,-Eir
6.
-/fr :
Mr/tt....... ...... : oCO. N • N... .
.... co
leg c+is90lip •!a PUD b .: ._ 0 B-3
7685
7680 �p 7669 7670 _:: N R N
Fel n I 60 Ell 5 4::.
o 788 7686 7547 70 7670 7665 6644 0 8-3 41")
7655H
7633 7664 7629 753' • 8-2
IIIMS 7629 7620 7625 7820 ,
7627 7600 7619 7600 7601 SILVER VIEW
760 7595 7594 L n C
7 7581 7579 7588 7575 ,- c^ ^. N 0
c _ pp! . PARK N N
N" N Tin
7565 Ile
0��MINNIIIIMM��,.wrg 7565 _a�-ro 2
il - •
J 7555 Minna® J b ' m T
7545 �`W Z 7545 7580 = _ .1(J) C•4 N�e.� N N N= Q`
W • 7515 ro
0 11 N.T NMN
R 8 OM 7500 OHM .5 7532 N e;rchk N N N
..
'MACK2N .
RONSON DRIVE �y� . ...i4_��
Pi, r 7489El. 7490 7485IFI n_ m 2 r co Si N
i '� r7 7465 •4. m aD m ' r _ N N m 2 0 CO
...... ........
7474 74712 N N N • _ N N N
7482 BRONSON r,„,,,. _ ..._ _ _ _4 N
7448EMI i L 7451 m ® - FOR _ ....-4:•:::::74:::;::::::-E.::::§:::,-:*
04
7430 7435 7434 >741 S N Zreinglarldr _ `::':
OR PF
p 7409 I 7440
740: 7405 74127408 .� - 7. o ° 740• _
7405 �� � • nrzAbb._ ..:::-2:::::.e,d 4
Zoning Map Case No. 485-97
7720 - 7730 Silver Lake Road N 4
Applicant: Glenn Karlen
•
i,i - \ki kkii 4. •
. -• Nt• \/'
\ N
, k v ki
•
i\ ‘,
' ':.c
:o : N I 3/1
zi PA lin !
kki 'N. tT4 03
..i : • : i : , !:'% Z
, ki '`) ; ' ; ' t • .' -
. ! 4%1 ' N'04 ' ' • - k k : . ; 1
•'c N, ki s Iii 1 1.' :,, . L ' t,t 1:b 1 : k)
0 i t;1.
- N '
1 I i ;
h
, f\
/ 5 YOZ* i
I
—..(?. •=1 I
t 1
1 h \NI
—,
„
=N-- \\ N
! \
----------4 --1 %:, —
----
•
1.
‘Ikt4% Z VZZW 1 ' -- • — • .
IN) t i 114 tk4Z4i1 1
0 Is. t:, k 14
% \‘‘ - V1 14
t t' its ÷ — , 5;
NI 1&
tS4 . 4
I
\ 1 \\\‘ 1
..,. ,
•
May 9, 1997
Glenn Karlen
2510 Wexford Court
New Brighton, Minnesota 55112
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway to
Mounds View, Mn. 55112
RE: Zero Lot line Variance for 7720- 7730 Silver Lake Road
Dear Mr. Erickson,
In answer to your request of a letter to the City of Mounds View
Planning Commission. I submit the following information.
I am asking for this variance so that I can zero lot line this rental . 11/0property. So that it can be sold as individual homes. Making a
betterment to the community by providing pride in ownership to each
of the units.
The zero lot line ordinance was adopted after these units were built.
However, they are built to party wall specifications. •
There are several other lots along Silver Lake Road that have a zero
lot line status. Therefore, we would like this same privilege.
The Lots do exceed the minimum square footage required for the zero
lot line status and they do meet the set back requirements for zero
lot line status.
Zero lot line is a betterment of this property for the City and
encourages pride in ownership and is good for the Community .
Cut of all the tenants I have had at this site the young families
that could have purchased and also wanted to purchase one side of
this unit could not afford to buy the whole building. These people
•
took better care of the property than the average renter.
I hope that these facts will be sufficient for the requirement and
the Planning Commission will decide to grant this variance.
Re ipp ly submi ted,
enn Karlen •
• MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 510-97
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
REQUIREMENT FROM 50 FEET TO 34 FEET TO ALLOW FOR A ZERO LOT LINE
SUBDIVISION FOR 7720- 7730 SILVER LAKE ROAD;
PLANNING CASE NO. 485-97
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Glenn
Karlen to permit a 34 foot lot width where 50 feet is required to allow for a zero lot line
subdivision at 7720 - 7730 Silver Lake Road; and,
WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-2, Single- and Two-Family Residential District and
is legally described as:
Lot 1, Block 1, Karlen's Addition
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated
111) with this request:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Letter from the Applicant
WHEREAS, the applicant presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission
stating that his intent was to convert the existing rental twinhome into owner-occupied dwelling
units; 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 there are
several other lots in the vicinity that have zero lot line status; and,
WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant in that the twinhome was constructed prior to the adoption of the zero lot line
requirements and at the time met all of the applicable requirements; and,
WHEREAS, granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same
district in that many of the twinhomes in the area are also owner-occupied with zero lot lines;
and,
Planning Commission Resolution 510-9711111
June 4, 1997
Page 2
WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship in that the distance to the north property line from the center of the building is 34 feet
resulting in a 16-foot deficiency in the 50-foot minimum lot width requirement; 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 subdividing the lot would better enable owner-
occupancy of the dwellings and promote a sense of pride, improve appearances and strengthen the
neighborhood; 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 granting of this variance will not result in any change to the
existing structure or present traffic conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission
acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Glenn Karlen to
allow a reduction in the minimum lot width requirement for proposed Parcel B (7730 Silver Lake
Road) from 50 feet to 34 feet to accommodate a zero lot line subdivision of the property located •
at 7720 - 7730 Silver Lake Road.
Adopted this 4th day of June, 1997
Jerry Peterson, Chairman
ATTEST
Pamela Sheldon,
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\485-97\KARLEN.RES
•
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 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
5. Planning Case No.487-97
2625 Highway 10; Silver Lake Commons
Development Review for 16 Townhomes&Renovation of Red Oak Apartments
Applicant: MSP Real Estate
6. Planning Case No.494-97
2209 Bronson Drive
• Variance in Front Setback for Air Conditioning Unit
Applicant: Craig and Diane Weinmann
7. Planning Case No.491-97
2337 Knoll Drive
Code Interpretation; allowance for public estate auctions at single family residences
Applicant: Hilda Braley
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.
* * * * * * * 9* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHAREPLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\AGENDA7.16
I
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
•
JULY 16, 1997
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA MEETING
AGENDA
1. Review of Minutes:
May 21, 1997
June 4, 1997
June 18, 1997
2. Discussion of Possible Ordinance Amendments
a. residential and commercial cat and dog kennels
b. surfacing and number of driveways on single family lots
c. requirements for surety
d. temporary events
3. Meeting Adjournment
i
•
•
Item #5
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
III Meeting Date: July 16, 1997
Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Planning Case No.: 487-97
Request: Development Review
Petitioner: MSP Real Estate, Inc.
Location: 2625 - 2665 Highway 10
PIN Nos. 06-30-23-44-0051, 06-30-23-44-0052
06-30-23-43-0012, 06-30-23-43-0013
Zoning/Land Use: R-4, High Density Residential
R-3, Medium Density Residential
Applicable Regulations: Section 1006.06,Development controls
Section 1104.01. General zoning provisions --yard requirements
Section 1104.02, Area and building size regulations
• Attachments: Drainage Review Memo from Rocky Keehn, dated 7/9/97
Revised Plans, dated 7/0/97 (Separate Attachment)
Letter from MnDOT, dated 6/26/97
Planning Commission Resolution,No. 513-97 (Parking Variance)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 514-97 (Development Review)
Background:
The applicant, MSP Real Estate, Inc., has requested approval of a development review and a
parking ratio variance for the proposed Silver Lake Commons development at 2625 -2665
Highway 10. A total of 16 new two-level rental townhomes will be crcated on the now vacant
properties just south of the existing Red Oak Apartments, which will be completely rehabilitated
as a part of this project.
As stated at your meeting held on June 18, 1997, the Planning Commission may be aware that
there has been some discussion with City Council on how this project will be financed and
whether the City is interested in selling the land at the corner of Eastwood and Highway 10 to
become a part of this project. These issues are being addressed outside of the development
review process. Staff has reviewed this proposal from the standpoint of whether it meets
development requirements. All of the dimensional requirements associated with this project have
been met, with the exception of the number of parking spaces required. With proof of parking,
• this requirement can be met.
The discussion at the June 18 meeting focussed on landscaping and drainage. The applicants have
submitted updated grading and drainage, site and landscape plans, date-stamped July 1, 1997.
These plans are included as a separate attachment.
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
Planning Case No. 487-97 •
July 16, 1997
Page 2
Analysis:
Drainage and Ponding:
The drainage proposal is to create a detention pond at the southeast end of the site, which then
would feed water to the Highway 10 ditch. The ditch flows north at this point, and water then goes
through a culvert under Highway 10 to the D.W. Jones property and wetland. While there has been
some discussion with the applicant about piping the water to the wetland on the D.W. Jones property
and creating a detention pond (for water quality purposes) on that property in cooperation with the
property owner, it has been established that there is sufficient room on site to accommodate the
required ponding if this option is not possible. A meeting between the parties has been scheduled but
will occur after this report was written.
The revised drainage plan and stormwater calculations provided by the applicant on July 1, 1997
were forwarded to Rocky Keehn at SEH, Inc., the City's engineer. According to Mr. Keehn, this
drainage plan better addresses most of the issues raised in his review of the applicants' earlier
submittal. These issues were (1) the possibility of flooding occurring on the property north of the site
due to the positioning of the buildings, (2) the need to address the existing bituminous swale which
carries water from Eastwood Road acxross the property, (3) the absence of detailed drainage •
calculations, and (4) the lack of contours for the proposed pond.
The first issue is tentatively resolved by regrading a portion of the property to the north to form a
swale that routes runoff around the parking area to the open area which then slopes toward the pond
at the southeast corner of the site. The applicants, however, will need to obtain a permanent
drainage easement over the regraded area to ensure its function in perpetuity. The second issue is
resolved by the addition of a new swale to replace the existing swale on the property that routes
runoff from Eastwood Road into the Highway 10 drainage ditch. This swale is not on-site, however,
and as such, permission will need to be obtained from Ramsey County, whose right of way it crosses,
and Mounds View's Public Works Department. The �.
third issue is resolved by the provision of the detailed
drainage calculations which have been reviewed and moi, . :
found acceptable by Mr. Keehn. The last issue is _
resolved by the addition of contours to the pond which , _.. ;1.::::
reveal a 2.5 to 1 slope--well under the maximum of �� ®
10 to 1 as suggested by Mr. Keehn. The pond depth is •
shown at four feet, also as suggested by Mr. Keehn.
:": r.::
Keehn raised two additional concerns after OMR
�-J/,: .;
reviewing the revised drainage plans. First, the inlet ---------� ®-`�'
and outlet to the proposed pond in the southeast corner
of the site are too close together. This can be remedied Figure 1 Proposed inlet relocation
by sloping the stalls toward the townhouse units and
relocating the curb cut to the north corner of the parking stalls as indicated in Figure 1 above.
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
• Planning Case No. 487-97
July 16, 1997
Page 3
The second concern regarded a lack of calculations to indicate that the storm sewer under the
southernmost drive (not shown on plans) could accommodate 100-year flows. The applicant has
verified that the size of the pipe is adequate and will provide calculations to support this assertion
before your meeting.
Landscape Plan:
The plans submitted by the applicant on July 1, 1997 include a revised landscape plan which shows
some of the changes that were suggested at your June 18, 1997 meeting. With regard to the
specific plantings, only two changes still need to be made. First, the plan does not show any
landscaping fronting Highway 10 south of the access drive. Depending upon availability, the
applicant will need to show a row of Dwarf Korean Lilac –
trees or Anthony Waterer Spirea in this location. Second, •R; 2 e �O
Regal Elms should �
the
be replaced with Hackberry, as was 7 - �
suggested by the City Forester Rick Wriskey. Staff '
recommends making four other changes to the landscape ' t y` �0
and site plan. First, the 26-unit -' y�
garage building should be � --c`,
positioned 18 feet to the east so that plots of greenspace I e9 • % .
remain at either end. This may result in the loss of the seen
111 existing elm tree shown on the plans. If this tree can not be I
retained, a flowering snow crab should be planted in its eti ' "n�
place and additional flowering snow crab should be planted t _
in the newlycreated greenspace. t e ,
This greenspace could be1.
l S,p
used for parking stalls if needed in the future. Second, a seC•MNC '� — — �– s
gate should be added to the chain link fence at its - "°" �—LINE.OF 0
northernmost point along Eastwood Road to allow for Figure 2 Proposed sod line
pedestrian access and a possible school bus stop. A path
should be added linking the parking area to Eastwood Road. Third, staff recommends that the sod
line (denoted by the thin dashed line) be realigned to encompass the play structure as shown in
Figure 2 above. Last, the three black hills spruce proposed along Eastwood drive in the seeded
play area should be moved closer to the fenceline to allow for a larger, unimpeded play area.
Access:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDOT) is requiring that the applicants add a right
turn lane off of Highway 10 to the development and an acceleration lane for right-turns exiting the
development. The letter from MnDOT is attached. To do this and to remove the existing driveway
and culvert, the applicants will need to obtain a permit from MnDOT. This shall be done prior to
the City issuing building permits for this project.
Parking:
The parking ratio required for multiple family residential units is 2.5 spaces per unit, with one of the
• spaces in covered parking. The total number of spaces required for this project would be 56
garages and 84 surface spaces, for a total of 140 spaces. The applicants propose 57 covered
garage spaces, one more than what is required for the proposed 56 units (40 units Red Oak
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
Planning Case No. 487-97
July 16, 1997 •
Page 4
Apartments and 16 new townhome units). The plan shows 65 surface parking stalls and sufficient
room to add 18 stalls in areas set aside in greenspace, for a total of 83 spaces--one short of the
required 84 surface parking spaces. The applicants will need to show one additional stall set aside
in greenspace as future parking. Staff recommends that this space be shown attached to the bank
of three stalls north of the mailboxes as shown on the site plan.
Staff is recommending that a parking ratio variance be granted to allow the plan to be approved as
amended. We believe that the ratio for parking for multiple family units in the City's Zoning Code
is too high, especially that the Red Oak buildings are one and two bedroom apartments. More
typical ratios are:
One bedroom 1.0 to 1.5 Two bedroom 1.5 to 2.0
Given these conservative ratios, staff recommends using the following:
Surface Parking: 1.15 uncovered spaces per each dwelling unit
Garage Parking: 1.00 covered spaces per each dwelling unit
Total ratio: 2.15 spaces per dwelling unit
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission grant a parking ratio variance for the Silver •
Lake Commons project proposed by MSP Real Estate, Inc. Based upon the above ratios, 65
uncovered surface parking stalls and 56 garage stalls would be required. Staff has prepared
Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97 approving a variance in the parking ratios for surface
parking from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1.15 spaces per unit. The resolution includes a statement that
the applicant has provided"proof of parking" to meet the full ratio required by the Zoning Code.
Utilities and Easements;Platting:
There are water and sewer lines in both Eastwood Road and Highway 10, so utilities are available
to the site. The applicant will need to replat the site to remove the lot lines since development will
be crossing those lines. A park dedication fee will need to be paid as a result of the replatting. The
need for easements for water, sewer and drainage for the development would be addressed at that
time. There are existing utility lines remaining from a former single family residence on the site that
will need to be removed and stubbed at the property line.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 513-97 approving a
variance in the required number of parking stalls from 84 to 65 surface spaces, subject to the
availability of 19 additional spaces if needed in the future; and,the Planning Commission approve
Resolution No. 514-97, recommending approval of the development review request for the Silver
Lake Commons project proposed by MSP Real Estate, Inc., subject to stipulations noted in the •
resolutions.
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\487-97\COMMON2.RPT
;��NNESpr,
Minnesota Department of Transportation
0.
1/4 yqt Metropolitan Division
°`�O• Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
June 26, 1997
Pamela Sheldon
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Dear Pamela Sheldon:
SUBJECT: MSP Real Estate, Inc.
Site Plan Review S97-045
East of Trunk Highway(TH) 10, North of CSAH 3
Mounds View, Ramsey County
C.S. 6204
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the MSP Real Estate, Inc.
site plan. We find the plan acceptable for further development with consideration of the following
• comments.
• We require a permit for the relocation of the access to TH 10. We also require construction
of a right turn lane on westbound TH 10 for permit approval. This development proposal
necessitates the turn lane and is the responsibility of the project proposer, the city, or both.
Enclosed is a diagram showing design specification for right turn lanes. In addition, the
applicant must remove the existing access according to our specifications.
The permit applicant must submit plan and cross-sectional drawings of the proposed access,
showing the required turn lane. The new access should have 6:1 slopes or greater at the
.,1. . - • •♦ e.1 .nta14..1 .o •. •- a • .- • .
Lars Impola of our Permits Section at 582-1447 for further information and the appropriate
forms.
• We may require a Mn/DOT storm water drainage permit for the proposed development.
Hydraulic computations and drainage area maps, showing before and after conditions and
addressing 100-year storms, must be submitted for our review. Existing drainage patterns
and rates of runoff affecting Mn/DOT right of way should be perpetuated. The site's storm
water discharge rate must not increase. Any questions regarding Mn/DOT's drainage
concerns may be directed to Gene Bovy of our Water Resources Section at 779-5053.
Questions regarding the permit process may be directed to Lars Impola of our Permits
• Section.
An equal opportunity employer
Pamela Sheldon1111
June 26, 1997
page two
• Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land
use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in
complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from TH 10 could exceed noise standards
established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the U.S. Dept. of Housing and
Urban Development, and the U.S. Dept. of Transportation.
Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway finds for noise mitigation measures. The project proposer should
assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of
any highway noise.
• We strongly encourage consideration of a second access to the site on Eastwood Drive.
We constructed arterials such as TH 10 to serve regional mobility needs rather than to
provide property access. When access points increase or serve greater uses along a
highway, they degrade the highway's capacity and safety. Consideration of a second
access to the site on Eastwood Drive would provide access to TH 10 through the existing
fill-movement access at CSAH 3/Eastwood Drive. •
• Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way will require an approved Mn/DOT
permit. The permit required depends upon the nature of the proposed work. Lars Impola
of our Permits Section may be contacted at for further information regarding the permit
process.
Please contact me at 582-1654 with any questions regarding this review.
Sincerely,
i
Scott Peters
Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison
c: Dan Soler, Ramsey County Traffic Engineer
I
. • Z
I
m It
I
_ 1i
0 c I '
2 o
I
* ) 1
v
c cn
co cit _
o C
r-
0
____S'
_N4_ co
mI TT�
1
CI) Dj
m j
D -{.
' V
• . . ,-13
T
Z C
1
D z
IV rm." Z M r
Zo Z
m Cm
0. 1- •
v i I
Ecn m
• D
ro
.r►
ct
0 . -1
I
I
I .
07/09/97 12:24 FAX 612 490 2150 SEH ST. PAUL 2002/003
•
MEMORANDUM
■ST.PAUL,MN 0 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 0 ST.CLOUD, MN 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS,WI 0 MADISON,WI 0 LAKE COUNTY,IN
TO: Pamela Sheldon,Community De lopment Director
FROM: Rocky J. Keehn, P.E.
DATE: July 9, 1997
RE: #487-97-Review of Silver Lake Commons
SEH File Number,A,MOUND9701.00(PF 80.12)
Based on our review of the grading plan (dated 6-27-97), pond layouts (dated 6-27-97), and
calculations (dated 6-26-97)for the above referenced project,SEH offers the following comments for
your consideration:
1. The pond volume proposed is adeq\ate to treat the storm water,however,the inlet and outlet •
pipes to the pond are too close together. This will cause"short circuiting"of the pond and thus
greatly reduce the effectiveness of its sediment removing capabilities.
Recommendation: Relocate the inlets to the pond so to discharge on the north side of the
pond or relocate the pond outlet to the southeast corner of the pond.
2. There is a low point catch basin and the beginning of a storm sewer system near the entrance
to the site that will capture runoff from the central drive area and convey the runoff to the
proposed pond. In order for the pond to reduce the flow rate to post-developed conditions,the
100-year runoff to the low point m'st be conveyed to the pond. One way is to size the storm
sewer system to handle a 100-year storm. Since there are no storm sewer calculations with the
information submitted for our review, we cannot determine if the storm sewer will handle the
100-year event. The other option is to use the east drive to convey the excess flow from the
low point to the pond. Based on the elevations shown on the grading plan, the height of the
curb is about the same as the overflow elevation to the east drive. Hence, it appears that if the
storm sewer system cannot handle the 100-year flow and water will go into the MnDOT ditch
system at a higher rate than the post-developed discharge rate.
Recommendation: Submit calculations that show the storm sewer was sized to handle the
100-year flow\regrade the entrance to the site to assure excess flow will
go east to the pond, .
07/09/97 12:25 FAX 612 490 2150 SEH ST. PAUL 2003/003
Pamela Sheldon
• July 9, 1997
Page 2
3. Based on our computer model and the information submitted by the developer,the 100-year
highwater elevation for the pond is 908.2. This will flood most of the open area on the east
side of the site.
Recommendation: The highwater elevation is acceptable since the flooding is infrequent and
should not cause any damage to the surrounding vegetation,
4. It appears that grading is proposed to be completed outside of the property owned by the
developer(as noted in your MEMO to me on July 1). During a site visit with the developer
they discussed the possibility of working with the property owner to the north to make sure they
do not change the existing overflow conditions.
Recommendation: The developer will need written approval from the owner to the north
before they proceed. Other options include a storm sewer down the central drive from the low
• area on the property north of the development or moving the far north drive to make sure the
grading occurs on the developers property.
The following table addresses your concerns listed in the MEMO sent to us on July 1, 1997.
•
Item from SEH comments
your
memorandum
1 Addressed by the developer when they added storm sewer beginning near the
entrance to the development
2 Addressed by the developer when they added storm sewer beginning near the
entrance to the development
3 - is . rs - ��ss s �) 11. s is- . s o• KTFTT. s using
multiple use detention areas (utilization of the proposed flood area for recreational
use when its not raining)then a pond with unflooded upland surrounding it.
4 Item 4 above
5 Item 2 above
•
RJK/rjk/MER
• 3ffdATMANOWEECINLOCOMPe TPINCAMOUNDYW.R?D
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION •
RESOLUTION NO. 513-97
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE IN PARKING RATIOS FOR THE
SILVER LAKE COMMONS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
PROPOSED AT 2625- 2665 HIGHWAY 10;
PLANNING CASE NO. 487-97
WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate, Inc. has applied for a variance of parking ratios associated
with the renovation of the existing Red Oak Apartments and the development of 16 townhouse
units on parcels located at 2625 - 2665 Highway 10, property zoned R-3 and R-4, Medium and
High Density Residential Districts, legally described as follows:
LOTS 78 THROUGH 82 AND LOT 83, EXCEPT THE REAR 150 FEET THEREOF;
SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 23, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View Zoning Code establishes the parking
ratios by specific use; which, as they relate to this project, are as follows:
•
Multiple Family: 1.5 uncovered, surface parking spaces per unit and at least 1
covered garage space per unit, for a total of 2.5 per unit.
WHEREAS, according to the Zoning Code, the number of parking spaces that would be
required for the 56 units proposed by the applicant are as follows:
Surface parking (uncovered): 56 x 1.5 = 84
Garage parking (covered): 56 x 1.0 = 56
Total parking spaces required: 140
WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed parking ratios used by other municipalities and parking
guidelines as developed by the American Planning Association and recommend the following
ratios:
Multiple Family: 1.15 uncovered, surface parking spaces per unit and at least 1
covered garage space per unit, for a total of 2.15 per unit.
WHEREAS, utilizing the adjusted parking ratios, the number of parking spaces required
for this development would be 121 spaces, broken down as follows:
Surface parking (uncovered): 56 x 1.15 = 65 •
Garage parking (covered): 56 x 1.0 = 56
Total parking spaces required: 121
Planning Commission Resolution No.513-97
Silver Lake Commons Project
Planning Case No. 487-97
11 July 16, 1997
Page 2
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to provide 65 surface spaces and 57 garage spaces
for a total of 122 spaces, one more than what would be required using the adjusted parking ratios.
There is sufficient room on the property to convert greenspace into an additional 19 spaces to
meet the 140 spaces required by the Zoning Code.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this request for a variance in parking ratios:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Revised Site, Grading and Landscape Plans, date stamped 7/1/97
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact
regarding the requirements for granting variances as set forth in Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 of the
Mounds View Zoning Code:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective
• date hereof have had no control.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
The existing Red Oak Apartments presently do not meet the parking requirements as
established in Section 1121.13 of the Zoning Code. This condition is pre-existent to the
development project under consideration as Silver Lake Commons and was not caused by
the applicants or the current owners of the Red Oak Apartments. While there is ample
room to provide the full amount of parking required by the Zoning Code, the applicant
would prefer to bank the stalls as greenspace in order to beautify the site and to provide
additional open areas for recreation. Research has shown that the Mounds View'parking
requirements are much higher in comparison to neighboring communities and communities
across the country. The applicant should not be responsible for the City's parking
requirements. It is advantageous to bank excess stalls as greenspace if the parking provided
will be adequate for the use proposed.
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this title.
d. _ That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this title to owners of other lands,structures or
• buildings in the same district.
The granting of variances to allow for"Proof of Parking" is considered to be a benefit to
the environment by not maximizing impervious surfaces in a development. Similar
variances havebeen granted for other recent projects.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97
Silver Lake Commons Project
Planning Case No. 487-97
July 16, 1997 •
Page 3
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
The ratios proposed for the project are as follows: 1.15 uncovered spaces per dwelling
unit (65 spaces) and one garage space per dwelling unit (56). These ratios are consistent
with surveys of other jurisdictions and information from the American Planning
Association, and represent a suitable adjustment. The conditions on this resolution require
that sufficient space be reserved on the site plan for providing the 19 spaces needed to
meet.the City's current parking ratios.
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title or to other
property in the same zone.
The granting of this variance will not conflict with the purpose of this Title in that parking
will be provided using accepted parking ratios for multiple family developments.
Sufficient room is available to build the additional parking required by the ratios in the
City Code, if it becomes evident that parking is needed in the future. The approximate
3,420 square-foot reduction of impervious surface is an environmental and aesthetic
benefit. •
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
The granting of this variance will be a benefit to neighboring properties mainly for
aesthetic reasons by preserving additional greenspace and reducing impervious surface.
Traffic will not increase on the adjacent streets as a result of this variance.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the criteria for granting a
variance in this case have been met.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby approve a variance in the parking ratios applicable to the proposed Silver Lake
Commons development as submitted by MSP Real Estate, Inc. with the following stipulations:
1. The parking ratios applicable to this property shall be as follows:
Surface Parking (uncovered): 1.15 spaces per dwelling unit •
Garage Parking (covered): 1 space per dwelling unit
2. Prior to action by the City Council on the development review for this project, and
in order for this variance to remain in effect, the applicant shall:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97
Silver Lake Commons Project
Planning Case No. 487-97
• July 16, 1997
Page 4
a. Revise the parking layout to show one additional future parking space so
that the total number of possible surface parking stalls is 84, of which 19
spaces are shown in parking areas which could be added if deemed
necessary by the City or property owner.
b. Add a notation to the site plan which states:
"A variance in required parking ratios was approved for this property by
Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97. The parking ratios approved for
this property are as follows:
1.1 5 surface space per dwelling unit
1 garage space per dwelling unit
The property owner is obligated to build up to an additional 19 parking spaces,
which would meet the parking ratios required by the Zoning Code, if deemed
necessary by the City based on future parking patterns and evidence that parking
needs cannot be satisfied on-site. The property owner shall be notified in writing
that additional parking must be built, and upon such notice, shall construct the
110 additional parking within 3 months, with consideration for weather conditions."
3. Approval of this variance shall be null and void if any one of the following
approvals are not obtained for this project:
a. Minnesota Department of Transportation permit approval
b. Development Review approval by the City Council
Adopted this 16th day of July, 1997.
Jerry Peterson, Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST
Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\487-97\PARK-VARRES
•
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 514-97
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FOR THE SILVER LAKE COMMONS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED AT
2625- 2665 HIGHWAY 10; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 487-97
WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate, Inc. has applied for a development review to renovate the
existing Red Oak Apartments and to construct a 16-unit townhouse development on the parcels
located at 2625 - 2655 Highway 10, property zoned R-3 and R-4, medium and high density
residential, legally described as follows:
LOTS 78 THROUGH 82 AND LOT 83, EXCEPT THE REAR 150 FEET THEREOF;
SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 23,RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a
development review be conducted for this and similar projects; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding •
this development review request:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Revised Site,Grading and Landscape Plans,dated 7/1/97
4. Letter from the Applicant
5. Letter from MnDOT,dated 6/26/97
6. Hydrological Review by Rocky Keehn,dated 6/6/97
7. Memo from Rocky Keehn,dated 7/9/97
8. Memo from Mark Bisho.,Fire Marshal,dated 5/28/97
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made findings that the application from MSP
Real Estate, Inc. meets the dimensional requirements as stated below:
Required Proposed: Met ?
Building Setbacks:
Front (Highway 10): 30 feet 48 feet Yes
Front (Eastwood): 30 feet 30 feet Yes
Rear: 30 feet 48 feet Yes
Parking Lot Setbacks: 5 feet 5 feet Yes
Minimum lot width: 100 feet 390 feet Yes .
Minimum lot area:
(2,500 square feet per D. U.):
Existing Red Oak
Silver Lake Commons (New) 40,000 sq.ft. 94,090 sq.ft. Yes
Planning Commission Resolution No. 514-97
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
July 16, 1997
• Page 2
Building height: 45 feet 30 feet Yes
Minimum floor area per D.U.:
Three bedroom units: 870 sq.ft. 1,320 sq.ft. Yes
Four bedroom units: 920 sq.ft. 1,620 sq.ft. Yes
Parking requirements:1
Uncovered: (1.5 per unit) 84 spaces 65 spaces No*
Covered: (1.0 per unit) 56 spaces 57 spaces Yes
*With proof of parking,a total of 86 spaces can be provided
(1) A variance in parking ratios to allow a reduction to 65 surface spaces was granted by the
Planning Commission in Resolution No.513-97. Approval of this development review is
contingent upon approval of this variance.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the landscape plan as
proposed satisfies the requirements of the Code as amended below:
The landscaping proposed for this site has been reviewed by the City Forester, who has
recommended changing one of the tree types (Regal Elm) for a more appropriate species
(Hackberry). The sod line should be realigned to encompass the children's play area as
• indicated in the staff report. A gate should be added to the chain link fence along
Eastwood Road to accommodate pedestrian access and a path connecting the parking lot
with Eastwood Road. A row of Anthony Waterer Spirea or Dwarf Korean Lilac
(depending upon availability) should be added in between the parking lot and Highway 10
front of the townhouse units. The 26 stall garage building should be shifted down 18 feet
to allow for greenspace at either end, instead of only at one end. A Spring Snow Crab
tree shall be planted on both sections of greenspace. If the 10 inch Elm shown on the
landscape plan can be retained after the garages have been repositioned, the Spring Snow
Crab at this end will not be necessary. Last, the three Black Hills Spruce shown to be
added in the open area along Eastwood Road should be pushed back toward the fenceline
so as to maintain an open, unimpeded playing area.
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the drainage plan for this site and has found
it acceptable and consistent with the Master Drainage Plan previously approved by the City
Council and Rice Creek Watershed District; and,
WHEREAS, the City Fire Marshal has reviewed the site plans and finds the layout meets
Fire Department requirements for emergency vehicle access.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that the development review for the Silver Lake
Commons development project proposed by MSP Real Estate, Inc. be approved subject to the
following contingencies:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 514-97
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
July 16, 1997 •
Page 3
1. Prior to action by the City Council on this development review, the applicant shall:
a. Revise the landscape plan to show Hackberry trees in place of the Regal
Elm trees.
b. Revise the parking layout to show one additional parking space so that the
total count of surface parking is 84 spaces, of which 19 spaces are
indicated as future stalls which could be added if deemed necessary by the
City or property owner.
c. Add a note to the site plan which states:
"A variance in required parking ratios was approved for this property by
Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97. The parking ratios approved for
this property are as follows:
1.15 surface space per dwelling unit
1 garage space per dwelling unit
The property owner is obligated to build up to an additional 19 parking spaces, .
which would meet the parking ratios required by the Zoning Code, if deemed
necessary by the City based on future parking patterns and evidence that parking
needs cannot be satisfied on-site. The property owner shall be notified in writing
that additional parking must be built, and upon such notice, shall construct the
additional parking within 3 months, with consideration for weather conditions"
d. Revise the site plan to show the repositioning of the 26-stall garage
building 18 feet to the southeast so that a plot of greenspace is located at
either end of the garages. A tree should be planted on both plots of
'.. ., --. B. - Ii- - .• ', It . - - i.. .- . -. .
recommended Spring Snow Crab Wit can be saved.
e. Add a gate to the chain link fence and add a path to the site plan that
connects the parking lot with Eastwood Road, north of the play area.
f. Add a row of Anthony Waterer Spirea or Dwarf Korean Lilac(either,
depending upon species availability)to the area between the parking
lot/driveway and the Highway 10 right of way in front of the townhouses.
g. • Change the sod-line indicated on the site plan to include the play structure
as shown in Figure 2 of the staff report.
•
h. Move the three Black Hills Spruces shown in the open play area back to
the fenceline to maintain an open, unimpeded play area.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5 14-97
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
• July 16, 1997
Page 4
I. Obtain a permanent drainage easement for that area on 7800 Eastwood
Road to be regraded for drainage and flood control purposes. The
easement shall be executed prior to approval of the development review by
the City Council.
2. Prior to obtaining any building permits or grading permits, the applicant shall
perform the following:
a. Install snow fences or another type of demarcation device around those
areas where trees are to be retained. The area shall be of sufficient width
so as to protect the trees' root systems. The use of heavy equipment shall
be prohibited in these areas, and the property owner/developer shall be
responsible for monitoring construction activities to make certain these
restrictions are enforced.
b. Obtain permit approval from MnDOT for the relocation of the entrance to
the project area, the construction of a right turn lane into the project, an
acceleration lane for right turns exiting the project and for any regrading
within the MnDOT right of way.
• c. A development contract shall be drafted and reviewed by the applicant. It
shall include surety for construction of the Highway 10 right of way
improvements. The contract shall be executed prior to the issuance of
building permits.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 16th day of July, 1997.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
• N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\487-97\DEV-REVU.RES
Item #6
• REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Meeting Date: July 16, 1997
Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Planning Case No.: 494-97
Request: Variance to allow Air Conditioning Unit in Front Yard
Petitioner: Diane& Craig Weinmann
Location: 2209 Bronson Drive
PIN No. 08-30-23-12-0018
Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential/ Single Family Home
Applicable Regulations: Section 1103.06, Subd. 2: Air conditioning units permitted only in
side and rear yards.
Section 1125.02, Subd. 2: Criteria for granting variances.
• Attachments: Planning Application
Zoning Map
Letter from Applicant/Photo Documentation
Planning Commission Resolution No. 512-97
Background:
The applicants, Diane and Craig Weinmann, are requesting a variance to locate an air conditioning
unit in the front of their home located at 2209 Bronson Drive. The line running to the furnace is
leaking and needs to be replaced. At the time the air conditioning was installed, the basement was
finished and converted into living space. The line is in the ceiling which is sheetrocked and
textured, effectively preventing its removal. Putting the air conditioner in the front would permit
easy access to an unfinished part of the basement where the furnace is located. The applicants
propose to landscape around the unit with shrubs and other plantings to screen it from public view.
Analysis:
The Code states in Section 1103.06, Subd 2 that air conditioners are allowed in side and rear yards,
but not in front yards. The intent of this Code is to maintain a uniform, consistent and uncluttered
curb-side appearance of homes in the City. The variance is requested to alleviate the hardship that
the applicants currently face. The applicants did not cause this hardship. Granting of this variance
would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of Zoning Code nor will it have the effect of
impairing adequate supplies of air or light to adjacent properties.
Recommendation:
Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 512-97 granting approval of a variance to allow
• for the location of an air conditioning unit in the front yard of 2209 Bronson Drive, subject to
stipulations.
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASESW94-97\AC-VAR.RPT
o�. .
flIflonrr"I CONESTUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION•
I s� 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112
~* "'f-nrtnt6V11 612-784-3055
• 612-784-3462-FAX
Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form
Applicant Information i�l ���� nn
X
Name of Applicant Ural l * kJl(IV p, L U,L(}1 y1 am yL Telephone 7821 51
Address ‘qaoel BYOnSc r &Wt. Fax
Alowida V i,tu, Mk 55/i .-
Interest in Property(check appropriate box)
XOwner of Property
❑ Contract for Deed Owner
❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager
❑ Agreement to Purchase
a Other(explain)
Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the
property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The
property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. •
Property Description/Proposal
Address or General Location 2+614i O frDI7 M fin/Pt
Legal Description /'I0 P.d6 lii.7Sf_ ob 6:1651)14- fie CO /3. kV V, spilt) wiz Air 69g/it&.
Property Identification#(PIN#) Off- 30-,2 3-/a- 00/S'-.2.-
#
!-.2..#of Acres
Current Zoning -"'b Of(lel
Present Use Type of Application
a UndeveIoped/Vacant a Comprehensive Plan Amendment £200
X Single Family Dwelling a Rezoning $200/ac;min$200 max$1000
❑ Duplex Two Family Dwelling ❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit*
❑ Multi-family Dwellings a Minor Subdivision £150
❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) 5350
❑ Industrial Establishment a PUD Amendment $150
❑ Other(explain) ❑ Conditional Use Permit R-1,R-2$75;all others$200
X Variance R-1,R 40,ail others$200
O Code Appeal £75
a Develop Review/Site Plan $100/ac;min 5100 max$500
a Wetland Alteration Permit $50+deposit*
a Wetland Buffer Permit ?
❑ Floodplain Permit $200 •
❑ 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
411
Property Classification ❑ Abstract ❑ Torrens
Description of Proposal N Qi d-1 m OUB X J r C fnl Ili l►'1 r 11111+ yh Icag hong -h) pt- .
hrnus.. om0,u - U,Y1i F ita}cs 4 res fu.(.t. Luroio�i house_I. �i ren �r►f �ihQ
11i,1 i i i'. l.L..0., . I I pi WO n ru .4 L t t1l i• .'
! /! S it' I t fro et- •. /t 4_ .j til I. ' .y �, O /1 l l t l .
I
.. .1. i. I - 1► run) + /. 1 % �A !� Q - i_+ .&i.gAAL/ A1.../IL�
�(,rI1AlA. i3 unA h134nf� C'�4101-e:
VY1 t nitctto
% 5 e Uh�� w �alA., had IV
B MY(OUR)SIGNA ON THIS APPLICATION I HEREB�� GG�� S /O St�.�.�td
DECLARE ,TO BEST OF MY
I KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED S TRUE AND ACCURATE.
Signature of Applicant IhOJ1L bUl/kl
Name of Applicant(typed/printed) INane. WWI h rYl/x�?
Signature of Property Owner a.LL kiiz & _
Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) fra 1(14)jii &.-
Hu. u;-f- Web Q i&unb;
7°D
i-
Gher /e4sen� Nr- �uRtc�gf 1 �a1d
uht>`
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date of Submittal 3 - q 7
Date of Acceptance (6 -'3 0 - Assigned to:
Planning Case No. Lf a ( 0 J 60-day Limit g'�c) 120-day limit I o-�.
Fees Paid: Account# Check#
Application:
Park Dedication: S 4-)Li
Deposits:
Other:
•Total:
C:OFFICEIWPWINIWPDOCSIADM1 ORMS1DEVAPP.FOR 1197
RD I
- 1 -
o a
N N g� ulr( Ei 5511 5512 5511
■
141 ‘41 •
n n ®o 5472 5503fe' 55845499 PINEWOOD
C4 N 5493 5494 5493' SCHOOL
5480 5479
5485 5486 5485
5474 5473 469 3475 5478 5475
R-4 5468 5487 5467 Ilk,
H
T T 5462 5463+ a 5459
r 5445 5454 5455 <F:VP
". c
5446 5447 C � 5447 '' W
5440 w M n O �' F-
5441 5439 n y.. Z
5434 5433 5433 r N �' N �'
I ►� 5425 LN
5428 5425
lk
5420 5421 / �_ 5419 N®I1 N N
5414 5415 = 5413 n A'
5401 5406 5405 - �®YfY ® 5405 N�'I N N N N •
- •N • DRIVE 0_
rEm . La
5394 3395 Z •N •N N N N N O N N N N N ' °0 5392 49 5392 539 ���1j.]}�.
rEs5386 5387 O " N N N N N N N N N N N N 538.• e 5386= �+l L_ Q '/�
en 3380 5381 Y Air 5380�� +l•' _
® 5372 5373 1 537 537 IR.
J
2 m X86 5367 5366 5364 4 536x�. 0 O
Mil EZZ1 5359 57 5358 335 5358
5353
CV COw C4 n CON n N COo o a N 53 535 5352 ��
5354 N N N N N N N N N
CV eft �� N N N CO N N N N N N N
"Iv
LAMB' AVE 3344 534 3344I.
401 5337 hi01 .niNN .. 010 gl Q! } • N5338 533 5338 kg0 5331 LAMBERT N N N N N N N N N N Z • 532' 5330 •
JTZ. Q 5323 24 PARK 0 5324 532 Z 5324 531: w
1,14
5317 it 531
• PF 531: 531 531 B .•t0; >
i.
1.— — ' 5308 530 cJ.1 5308 • l Q
4. 5298 5301 5302 5307 53001529• 5300• z r IIII
5:‘,...„,_,8 5295 ,n r, a, n 0 as n in at n m a N 5294 529 5294 529 0
e d 5290-' W m n n m P, r. n N n ; o w_ orin f
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
U 5267 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 5266 52= 5266
B- E CO RD H2
'1. t-3 r N 5275 5267
ti 5263
• o ti PUD
5251
5
► 2 - =30 >
N4431; N
14:='
60tWOO DR
+-� 5250 ti� N 0
N N 5200 1-^ a
MIRE 5240_;::;;:.�- 5205 U 5201 Q4
.....:....
..EM 5230+ ti A. Z
IMEM 5220 ,yi / O C
52101521• 5210 g
52*''5209 3200 b1.
1.. 1. 5150
0
1%."44,\
i Fl
1.
N N N N N
(70.7-"-"‘" oo.•00 le
D0 ti1ti,9� pi
H as
eOf ilio
l
•
Zoning Map Planning Case 494-97
Applicants: Diane & Craig Weinman N
Address: 2290 Bronson Drive
.. sof' ry
I '.�� � t3., •
:vim •
,n. I: I ) .
,a t
• .;4, I . � „hCA
0
2 0z
t co
TA
CI ""4=,..""4=,... s*.t•' ohr= .- . :0 .0 a)..$_-___ O O 3 E O in o - (n L
? c- h CU
O CO 9- Z o
•
4 u
O O Z
y5 ..s CO •� �- .E EL ` U) Cn - 3 w
b.;:g - :, ...•:•-•- ,- o) ›.., — o 8 CD (;) t 7) 'T — -o
O
.a r ° fII
HI
U O
I o
yr.- i -, .aro a - — w 3
i,•
a) —+.: r;.:.A- I Y _0 o. U p0 m (o v) o O o o
-r. CO a) U ° U 0 L C,, � a O
L o a) a) 'p N Li 0 O ° a L
* 0 co - a) c L ° 3 o cA O 77)
Q ' jz ' -IL mC .- •c ar 'Qoco -0 -to
p o
CC - - _ — -- _ - 2- 3 ii- C L uvi 0 °c� ° v� U' '
Ja 5
�• - • w 2 C.°c cu 2 N 2 o - 'Z 3CI m 3 7 c%) Z o
i Ce 03 75
_
• CD �, -3 - c o E a) Z > L a) a) o co
�-_ 'a ca o O > x ° u� c o c ca
i.. - tea` i) w 3 o Li 2 c o J S 3 ? o ,, > _, z .c
E ,4 f v ••.,4 . . mil _
'..,,5,1::: ',..1_7 •,.•
/�� ,j - _r M• . •,to [
. ' Z- - -
RS �t, • a 5 '
o
•
N oy r`•.• -
06 s ` °cn a) N
O L w
° c o
o
L
L
` N O cu Q) O N O
Q
•
x i , A '4 L a) X >, .- m
Iii
oc .a 3
W .r I1 k.4.,;
. 0:'x•, i I ..' •. i� aim• > � X. �a Y ` O 2C U
` _01
aw� yI ,. aQ) Q (i3wE c ° „
-
U Ed - LO ° N -. Loa)
` , u__ .,. O - ca ' o_ c - a) - a N
ca
CO
r L- ac)) -c c - o c o m = o U o cn
1 ~cn °CT . v 3 a • c `o iu a� c
mcr) c
a aa3
. *. Z w Lm C U ° ca7 o c .U C O > QO �- a) O
ca 3 °
U > 5 L N o_ — Y O U ° N Y ap
Q cu o 2. L o 0 0 3 a) m ` - a o f `� a
Q -szi
i .
c---• • , 1
1
cI II
. I i:
' i 1 1
(
• 1
I
-•-
'.
• . ,
1 .. • - : .::_;-.-...-_ ......_._,..;:-_.--.._ _ ,----------- :,.....,...-- -- 6
3 ................,.._
C./
!i
1, 0 ,
4 : I 11 1
-O .•
3i!
0 v) • r! 3,
-I i
„--
. _:2 1
f,..r7
Li.. :. I ..":‘
i ; V ••••
• .0 :
—i- 1 t •
•
.s. . .
tt. q I
i .
VI—
. .
. 1 .
• q 1 . i
• i.44 Zr
0 ,
, ..,.
H .I
' 8 • - I ti 4. . ,
1 . al
_.t 4 ; -.4.2
— _ . ' _II
c) -1
I1- I"t - l'2 --ri., 1 V vi -* 0 . ' #
• . i
Ad .
c el . s' ,
I- r.1iN . 1 1
, 1
I —fr , .0) —t-
. ni - , .
. .4.
1 I ,i 1 _.4
..,
-.... -I CiT ri-7 —.1
— 57
1 i ---3--- - - 4 o) , • .
. ' s _—, .
I
_____
- 4_ ° '
......„__----.77_....,_ . • , . t , er ta 0
• , .. . iv7
. , - . ,..) v7
I. . v.-,-- - ! _-. ' - vl
", ,ix c : -7-, 'i -4,'--- - +
,,.:.( a
6 ' !., t--.. ''4 Ze
Z r%0 -,
3 i- 1 • 1 i . i 2.zr ' ,.
-4 0 ..c.r 1
: ,,...,„,.... .
0 I .4- _a
I vi •?.
rs 8
0 .1 a
Vl • ti.,.._j
4 24
••,, 1 1I ----..1
ki •, .‘
i_ -r
-.‘ '57 — ,d ---- I- cl°
1 ! — v 40
vI
' - . i . 3 . a,
1 ...L.
c.) of vi
I i .
: .
.0 .
. .
. I . •
•
T . .
• .
• I I . ,
i
. • 1 • ) 1 ' , . ,
i
V _ _.. ._
• MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 512-97
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE ALLOWING FOR AN AIR
CONDITIONING UNIT TO BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD OF
2209 BRONSON DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. 494-97
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of
Diane and Craig Weinmann, residing at 2209 Bronson Drive; and,
WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is legally
described as:
The south 140 feet of the west 75 feet of the east 165.01 feet of
Lot 13, Block 1, Spring Lake Park Highlands,
Ramsey County, State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated
11) with this request:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Letter from Applicant/Photo Documentation
WHEREAS, the applicants are faced with a hardship not of their own making in that the
line connecting an existing air conditioning unit to their furnace room has deteriorated and needs
to be replaced. The line is embedded in a finished ceiling and cannot be replaced in the same
location without partial destruction of the finished basement; and,
WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicants in that inferior materials were used in the installation of the air conditioner and the
lines to the furnace are buried within the finished ceiling of the basement, all of which occurred
prior to the applicants taking possession of the house; and,
WHEREAS, granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicants any special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same
district in that the benefits of air conditioning are often desired by home owners and the
placement of air conditioning units outside is a typical improvement in single family districts; and,
•
Planning Commission Resolution 512-97
July 16, 1997
Page 2
WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship in that the unfinished portion of the basement and location of the furnace are at the front
of the house; and,
WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title
or to other properties in the same zone in that with appropriate screening, the unit would not be
visible from the street or adjoining neighbors; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood in that the air conditioning unit will stand no more than two-fee high in
front of the home.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission
acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Diane and Craig
Weinmann of 2209 Bronson Drive to allow the siting of an air conditioning unit in the front yard
of the residence, with the following condition:
1. The applicants shall screen the air conditioning unit from view by a mixture of •
plantings as approved by the Planning Commission and provide a certified check in
the amount of one hundred($100) dollars to the City at the time permits are pulled
for installation of the air conditioning unit to guarantee the planting screen is
installed. Funds shall be returned upon installation of planting materials.
Adopted this 16th day of July, 1997
Jerry Peterson, Chairman
ATTEST
Pamela Sheldon,
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\494-97\AC-VAR.RES •
Item #7
• INT ER
MEMO
OF F ICE
To: Planning Commission
From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
Subject: Planning Case No. 491-97
Code interpretation; estate auction at single family residence
Date: July 11, 1997
Staff has received a request from Schultz Auctioneers on behalf of Hilda Braley and the Braley
family to conduct an estate auction at 2337 Knoll Drive. Staff is seeking guidance from the
Planning Commission on a code interpretation whether or not estate auctions are allowed in
residential neighborhoods.
Usually outdoor sales require a conditional use permit, and are not allowed in residential districts.
Section 1106.03 Subd. 7, however, states that accessory uses in the R-1 District include:
Other allowed uses incidental to the dwelling unit, including but not limited to:
clothes lines and poles; lawn and garden ornaments; pet house or facility;
playhouse, swing set or other structures for play or recreational use; outdoor living
room or screen house of up to four hundred(400) square feet.
All of the uses listed are structures or improvements of some type. However, it is a very common
practice for residents to hold garage sales, for example, and the only provision we have found
which would allow such uses is this Subd. 7. If garage sales are allowed, we would suggest that
estate sales be treated in the same manner. Our only concern with estate sales is the amount of
traffic and on-street •arkin. which ma . K_ •- ' . _• • . . .. .
this issue with the representative from the auction company. The attached letter explains how the
auction will be conducted. It appears that this particular auction will be well-managed and will
create a nuisance in the neighborhood.
Recommendation:
Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, find that estate auctions are included as
an accessory use in the residential districts as provided in Section 1106.03 Subd. 7, as long as the
noise, parking and traffic associated with the sale are deemed to be only a temporary
inconvenience in the neighborhood and do not reach the level of being a nuisance and public
As safety hazard.
N:(DATA\USERSTAMS\SHARE\DE VCASES\491-97\4UCTION.PC
•
i
•
• PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
May 21, 1997
Mound4}z �•�ltw City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds.V , MN 55112
1. Call to Order :4" 'z#, ,z,.z„z xiiiiazzWk.. •k,
k '' ".•:i.ii.;...2`::i,i.•`.'#..',,x•M:,V4`.,`•'°<ir:�``v.,•
The meeting was called to order by Chair P. :-.on at:-.05 p.m. 'Y=*}$' „i :•
go-
2. Roll Call , .�
vh :
Members present: Commissioners Brooks, r bert, Mi.r aemle, Stevenson
Johnston and Chair Peterson. '
,
Also Present: Community Develo
4116,th it o •• -Idon anning Associate
Ericson and Council Liaison Ko... 8 eines? = _t,I
0 .:.4-
3. Citizen Requests and % :menu ' Items zr.t on the Agenda
•
Ther`were no citi• ;..8 s;3 quests �:' : s`:`i
.�.. s from the floor.
mit
Nigwom
Index to Mtn i i ,. i" : i� ' Page
.ice r.:i „, iz
Planning Ca 8% Condi al Use Permit for an Oversized Garage, 2
Kennet Newcom' `' r. nollwood Drive
- - i = - - ••• • :< -- „„eN.:, •' - • - -- • for an Oversized Garage, 4
Noel Barragan, 7765 Spcj Lake Road
Plaing Case No. 4897,'Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales of 5
? hduce, Merryvili ,.-arm Market, Mounds View Square
Zing Case No..: ;, 4-97, Variance for Front Yard Setback, Twin Cities 6
.8ria prat for I nity, 5377 Quincy Street
a"z�z�,,,az�xzzzzsz�,ziz,zz�x
0
Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 •
Regular Meeting Page 2
4.
Planning Case No. 480-97 <;'x.
7150 Knollwood Drive os ; v
Applicant Kenneth Newcombe ling rrY
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized e (1 ` .`"-AN `�v:,Titre feet).
C`Y2Y+ `7� ".Y'4`�izx �"`Y`Y2EQYYYYY"Yt. '
M iYY r0 Y`Y" `Y.YYYytt.YfYYYY.3'
The applicant, Kenneth Newcombe, was pr=-- . t. '4.1 4�r,.;, r
‘404
Planning Associate Ericson briefly reviewed t e informing the Commission
that the applicant is requesting to construct g. ,104#0.1049 24x0``'0'.`,'".''"`te foot garage on his
property located at 7150 Knollwood Drive arnc that tk itimions of the garage
will be 39.5 feet by 32 feet which is fouramt of the'. i
.... He informed the
Commission that there was an attachavoear garaget +i h was converted to
living space in 1994. He informed - 0`- -i.•:.:.$11(0, ` ,that tt !e are two driveways
o.
currently on the property; one 17,:‘,.* ng to :`.., ' ` 3f the garage and one
pir
leading to the proposed gara. ,. : ."?r.
•Mr. Ericson explained th,` `i e ou.: the pro.c-"rty he noticed nuisance code
violations in the rear ya pop ca :;brash : .tickets, etc.) which can be seen from
Woodale Drive. r on re Ythat these items be removed prior to
City ncil app he conttlt i e permit.
a., wftwv
Mr ` tated. ? ,1...�.`` �. -nsional requirements have been met and he noted
that the '>�Tis 506
i* ,$.i.,::,. .... k,
He:�8 a `�a4Y com ends approval of Resolution No. 506-97
�". 'the 1,264 s uar S ` ` ara a with stipulations. Mr. Ericson read aloud the
`< stipulations confined in the resolution.
_: The applica4*enneth Newcombe, addressed the Planning Commission
} explainin th t the cans and buckets will be moved to the proposed garage. He
`." `' y`Y < f he will dispose of most of the brush but would keep some of it for
Y�=;;:itgr efional fires. Chair Peterson indicated that storage of wood is not prohibited
as long as it is kept in an orderly manner. Commissioner Brooks inquired as to
when they were planning to build the garage. The applicant responded that as
soon as he receives approval he will begin construction. Commission Miller
inquired about the old driveway. The applicant indicated that he would be willing to •
remove a portion of the driveway leading to the street and plant grass in that
• Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 3
section. He indicated that he wants to leave a portion of the old driveway for his
basketball hoop. Chair Peterson asked if the new driveway would be paved. The
applicant indicated that eventually it would be, depending upon the fug available.
<i �r
Commissioner Brasaemle inquired about the number of ets in the front of
garage. Planning `ethis requirement
the ara e. Associate Ericson indicat.`"`;, at hey� �7'
applies only to the front of the garage, not then �`. 4..0 bakxiie:P;}
Commissioner Miller inquired as to the req ent ;, improved AV 4:11With ARP
swfax - en
`
building a new garage. Mr. Ericson comme > :‘:•ur Code states }... ;arkin
surfaces (i.e., driveways) must be improved. ;. .; % Director Sheldon added
that the minimum allowed would be gravel. ';'.:N..p;.#:•e again stated that the
driveway would be done with concrete next -ar w �t " 3;: }:.ds are available.
.:;'.'-;:k.,
Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brasaemle to `..Y ,,, fir` `t
a olution -97, "Resolution
Recommending Approval of a Condition a"P €i€ t4:, low anMversized Garage for
e, : t g
Kenneth Newcombe, 7150 Knollwood a Mo ism Case No. 480-97" as
amended. rn„.,:.:6 t., `
• .4::1'r
z, gew-
, `zz, .,ice
zz
sW
Jerry Blanski, 2933 Wi._ , Dri1 ,`ti`.{address:``` the Planning Commission stating
that he borders Mr. Nei be's s •erty a<. x hat he has no objection to the size
of th, proposed g-4:::,..Out is •. i_`$, €t the time period in which he has to
co . t- the g max; w t: . Encs:`' 2,. =.td that there is a stipulation with approval
,tee: ditiont., 8 it that ' `e applicant would have one year to complete
ak
the a� d if it is. ,,t,_,km g<R,:• •leted within that time the applicant must remove the
�zcizr+...;c:,%;z� \cam” zetas **sk'',
garageww :._ for a rte :`•�• 'anal use permit. Mr. Blanski also inquired about
the wid € L: and Apottie garage would be located and wondered how
clos&fitwi to e property lines. Mr. Ericson indicated that the garage
..' • •• •- .a }.mac ••• • - • - �� ■ •�
AI Commissioner filler indicated that the Code does allow five feet from the
AN property line. .;'. Blanski was concerned with the applicant having to remove
:\ZLY` Et'``t another trees t `build the garage. Mr. Blanski asked that the stipulations again be
llr hated.
w z ,z `i,``,,µz;:`#x`
> r tarnit issioner Miller inquired about the statement contained in the resolution that
refers to "storage of larger than typical equipment" being allowed. Planning
Associate Ericson responded by saying that he believes this statement refers to
riding lawn mowers as opposed to a push mower, but that the statement could be
• changed to be more specific.
Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 •
Regular Meeting Page 4
Commissioner Brasaemle questioned the height of the proposed garage and
questioned the maximum height requirement of 15 feet. Director Sheldon
explained that the 15 feet maximum is measured to a point halfway upe peak,
based on the definition for building height. ik. ;AP
iik
Motion Carried: 7 ayes, 0 naysxr. �:> �__� 11 ��
The Planning Commission continued to disc 4``� the ama Beni ilmi% i ulat€ fis
:ik.�,`: .a. �m.:i:.,@.:°�#tt• k'f, `mit•
contained in the resolution. t,,, ° ;
`�"�kkY T "�i.
The applicant was informed that the City Cou?t � ':dbe considering this case on
June 9, 1997, at which time a public hearing }`$02
447 111516x,
Planning Case No. 481-97 ."" "`.....�}" ..x`k ., � *
7765 Spring Lake Road ,� �::•'` $:„ow
Applicant: Noel Barragan „i, `
Request for a Conditional Use P- : t for an.gS Tersized g rage (1,180 square feet). •
r
The.applicants, C„... "�``� Noel = w•- ” -re present.
P , ssoci : gig.+ explainthat the applicant is requesting a conditional
use`�ptt €`:•• const „ t -rsized garage (1,180 square feet) located at 7765
SpringtOW.•�, d. He•',.s ¢ =- :f,I=-t the dimensions of the garage will be 36 feet by
32 : ti ?:.,• -ke 7: :''a•- cent of the area of the lot (not including the property
tha a ends` street and under a portion of Spring Lake).
: y'fhe Planning MOO ion was concerned with the two curb cuts on the property.
AR Y The applicant responded that the double curb cut is aesthetically pleasing and
: _ would rather no remove one of them. Director Sheldon added that perhaps this
4 «L«;ti
issue could: worked out when Spring Lake Road is reconstructed in 1998. The
tinte, aUows- or homeowners to apply for a variance to keep two driveways and a
<n` : rp `tustification in this case could be a site distance problem because the
"teri `r`ty is on a curve.
The Planning Commission discussed the amendments to the stipulations contained
in the resolution.
• Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 5
Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve Resolution No. 507-97, "Resolution
Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Oversized Garage for
Noel Barragan, 7765 Spring Lake Road, Mounds View Planning CasalWe. No. 4g$7".
my
Motion Carried: 7 ayes, 0 nays
.4M03, Anpink
The applicant was informed that this case wo be considx 6�'€ : .:June 9, A Y.
1997, meeting, at which time a public hearingrould be � . . ' : `�`�. . w? '
�x�.
The Planning Commission discussed the iss•'v'r,4,* .,sing the Code 1.:7: r,1 this
time each year,several applications for oversize;:. .,Xare brought before the
City for action. , rr:`rar
,NotSiiii
wY
i
.,..fix iraw" -
6. +Y.•x raY.?` }k`` &. w
Planning Case No. 483-97Ail 4` ` `
Mounds View Square Shopping Cent; `;, ' "rn;z:-,'My
• Applicant: Merryville Farm Marke F.
Request for a Conditional Use -1, ;"7``". for ``+door S- ..i.:', of Produce
Ki r •n, repr.-,= .� Merryvi k'�^, arket, was present.
i xx.,xY x� a_, x•
Pla Associate k',,,,;:;`,��s.s. •.-viewed this case explaining that the applicant is
syss.request : dition -= it for outdoor sales of produce at Mounds View
Square S enter` ` ig lot from July 1 to September 21, 1997, seven
da awee`k +0 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mr. Ericson reminded the Commission
$• — — •• .Oi; .~>`o..f..',$i.: —• 04 •. .
• I — •— .. v— — — .. -
µ }location and thatV 's not aware of any problems as a result of this operation.
" He added that r changes have been proposed from last year, however, there may
ANI< be a slight ovp in the uses at Mounds View Square Shopping Center parking lot
,zxxx
;4=h= since Linder :Greenhouses' conditional use permit expires on July 15, 1997. Mr.
:xxn;xr `$$` csor d that the stipulations and criteria for granting a conditional use permit
.'::03 ri" a n met regarding this request.
Mr. Ericson stated that Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 508-97.
Motion/Second: Miller/Obert to approve Resolution No. 508-97, "Resolution
• Recommending to City Council Approval of the Conditional Use Permit Request by
Merryville Farm Market, Mounds View Square; Planning Case No. 483-97".
Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 •
Regular Meeting Page 6
Motion Carried: 7 ayes, 0 nays
The applicant was informed that this item would be considered at the` :#ne 9, 1997,
City Council meeting, at which time a public hearing would < eld ,
.4giOP
Planning7.
Case No. 484-97 a` µ`Vi`
r` �.. `fit .,;,; ;,
5377 Quincy Street .> % }»
Applicant: Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity N. H.>.
Request for a Variance to Allow a Four Foot Encroa.� ' . a. e 30-Foot Setback
Y\"`Y Y"""Y
...��Y`YY'Ycf2!70�� It'll"'
.RY.��`,``�``�` „� YYY,lf
Bill Powell, representing Twin Citi� ���i���� anity�<�as present.
ase
Planning Associate Ericson a ained ,t-A.:::'the -. �`' -€ is requesting a variance to
•the front yard setback to c��ruct a.0�� ered si•�, 00t covered entryway to the
house that is currently u. -.,.: •nst►� ion at <Y Quincy Street. He added that
the property, which wa eated i. A189 as Y s It of a minor subdivision at 2186
Bro .-.on Drive co• . ` �
to the s : 1 ��:- • requirements for buildable lots.
H. `'Tz , it is i ;�; haped•fi t is more wide that it is deep which limits
„N, t.Y .houses .1,,'A . _ted on e property. Mr. Ericson added that the house
carrt • Qved bad:-`' ,i.�her because of the rear setback requirement. He
also aid x4 of th�Yl-'�.%�� located on the west side of Quincy street
encroa YYY`,�`�, cont s=a>..,. , two at 25 feet and two at 15 feet. The applicant is
reqs ig.2. x , tbacr. Mr. Ericson added that Staff feels the proposal
r.:
If Bill Powell, Tv�1 ities Habitat for Humanity, addressed the Planning
Commission eilaining that the entryway would be an open porch with a wood
'`�' '�` railing aroun4Tiree sides. He added that the entryway is proposed to be a truss-
YywYYY``. 4Y,.y
.ge.:..,,,,., ort of structure on concrete footings with a wood deck.
`�`'�''YYY`Y��NY�4iYY�u�.h`Q��,i\`Y,�N
YYY�YYYYYY;`Y`YY,�`b."Y.YY2Y�Y`.::"
..YYYK`•Y\CYY,YYYY,.FYY``'yh"v
� <,x<:x ;Y', . i�t'ing Associate Ericson indicated that Staff is recommending approval of
amended Resolution No. 509-97. Staff was also recommending changes to the
resolution to change all references to a 26 foot setback be changed to 24 feet and
that all references to a 4 foot encroachment be changed to 6 feet.
. .
• Mounds View Planning Commission
Regular Meeting May 21, 1997
Page 7
Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to approve Resolution No. 509-97, "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.44,484-97",
as amended. a, Aor
Al", of
A sipARK
Commissioner Brasaemle commented that he woot see ills as being p.
major problem in light of other setbacks along,fprticy StregitE*(41tict that the
lot is shallow. Chair Peterson added that hOas not f4fOrar aikiiikti.Ircge
when the lot was platted in 1989, but that acriqt nal p.,;.erty may haste 1;Sii .Tekttcen
with the reconstruction and widening of Quinr,-..—issU41'. 4,01r
Motion Carried: 7 ayes, 0 nays
..,,:* ,-...,,,,.......,.,.
):4' NMZ"6,*•1
,.1..' V.Mata•iiiiik%
NRIMMO.,
Chair Peterson informed the applicant tha, ..: item does nilitrequire City Council
ookinP. Alkinr
action and that final approval has been •--: t,',.,$&,.
APA:*iiki, ..:::.....,..•
lie
„Ii.‘q's WomoNik, Ar
..Ar
8. Staff Report/Information Items .iv Air NERV:av
4r -,:,. •
-wow
411 :,.
.'4.' ..• P
There were no Staff Re•i.„.6r-- •r InfilOation It-
9 ;O
..*
. •„,....,:..
nti*
. Chau •erson and.•sia ng Coirtirm:, :,!i:. Reports
..„..m.,,,,,,..%:,„:::::‘
Melt;: :‘,-, irese'nIM,,z,. -y 7, 1•° •., meeting were Commissioners Brooks, Obert,
.. .„
Milfem:.,-1--,,,.-mle,T :Weterson. (Commissioners Stevenson and Johnston
1 .:i.. .. .-sde*a• ::::,:ksiW
had excgsetF,,:GsencdSVA,Z6skkkser
‘Mr9h* k „‘rael9r
,4-:--silinkt*. Ite
Alowetetitko.,-,71.,6. muhtty Development Director Sheldon, Planning Associate
.`."%,
.4„."
fTcson and C0s-r `vi,i:- .r)i,,,on Koopmeiners.fr ,.„:.: „,....„,
*A,,,.,,,,.... ...
& ....:.$e
icukr Adjournment AF
,o.ff *
Aw4
4.,.%
. There beingf,' further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson
taggiiigtdjoumactittit meeting at 8:58 p.m.
ANIGIER,INO
meeting immediately followed the special meeting).
Respectfully submitted,
I
• PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
June 4, 1997
MoundS: ,.. w City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mc ids 1f' w, MN 55112
"giN �"
a. aaa.a zaa•`2•
Baa ' x#0.•
' zz
y.µ2: L.t tY2"•'...
1. Call to Order A ife x • o`
i a ' EH i; '`L.`2i.2aa`2.Ca2.``.EMIN `r
�, h aE `fix . %. t .:,
The meetingwas called to order byActingC" :, Stev=:Y:son at 7:00 ,'' �k '24
`�
.ah
2. Roll Call
Members present Commissioners Brooks, Obert, ' `$``ay:..`� ,...aemle Stevenson
and Johnston. (Chair Peterson had an d abse ;:.:;2
Also Present: Community Develo > ` .,"t • -Idonie®panning Associate
eat 2.22`a.•�•�.4 a2 .,,x.:
Ericson and Council Liaison Ko:.•p` einers .2` a.214,..:^a-`
• #,‘"''' A it."
lir*
3. Approval of Minutes: .;:Z. ° riI ,.. 97 (Re : ar Meeting)
::: q ril<` 997 4. . cial Agenda Meeting)
Apri �Special Meeting)
Motio t - �;x ; .:rasae : Y.€�_ '7to approve the minutes listed above as amended at
•^.2.2...2:2,`.•.:;a Yc;ziM„i;., .
the revio i t ,N meet w.-.
P u :`tiz .
Motion Carrii €:`gays
a22. 2.0 .....-:..m.,;.-...„0...
ASP
.,q`µ
t\�2i:Y�. r\
4. ? Citizen Requests . Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
Of
v}�vyy
kik •♦h*
�Ni2•a..y There were no dtizen requests or comments from the floor.
22':....x.. ti,+t
a ;fit $ a #.....�.'
star }:•...
NRil aa.iia aaai
In >lirnutes Page
Planning Case No. 485-97, Variance to Allow a 34 Foot Lot Width for
Glenn Karlen, 77208730 Silver Lake Road 2
0
, Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 1997 •
Regular Meeting Page 2
5.
Planning Case No. 485-97 .. ;;.
7720/7730 Silver Lake Road }` '�* $'�
Applicant: Glenn Karlen 4. Y YYr ,z
Request for a Variance to Allow a 34 Foot Lot Width, \ . `A , 50 i � equired
I wIK ,fir
M}}} ca `YYYYYYY�Yw:::iYj2µl2Yx<. „Y,}r
4`Y.`' i"e` ' '}'i YYY}k rill'YYYY`'"k YY""`'•
The applicant, Glenn Karlen, was present. 1.i.„ .,A Nu =.`Yrr =. "
Planning Associate Ericson briefly reviewed tf' "` .%;{ informing the Commission
PP requesting }
that thea applicant is re uestin a variance to.< ;�" Y ��inimum lot width from 50
feet to 34 feet for proposed Parcel B for an casting'' 2.}%}` ` - located at
7720/7730 Silver Lake Road. He inform a'., Commtsf� the twin home was
constructed in 1978 which was prior:tG `' `, t regul governing twin homes
and zero lot line developments. I ` it �`a `:%: -ppli `, Mr. Karlen, would like
Ift
to convert the building to owner., cupie•.," ` =,��:; g }�' hat a zero lot line
subdivision would advance th',��•roces �� 'Mr. E `': .x dded that the twin home is •
located off-center of the lo • i hat th `lwo lots :-ated by the subdivision would
not be off equal size; onalTA d m= ' he mirf,it m lot width and the other would be
34 feet wide. The lots eet t Minimu A A:''ze for area. He added that the
granting of this va ' a .r ould n# a4, , =ny visible physical change in
ap$-,j:-z. ce of ome. .- ,
� , Resolution No. 510-97, "Resolution
Motion/Se {}} .ter/Brae;, ..- prove
Approving aRe. .in the Y �, of Width Requirement From 50 Feet to 34 Feet to
Allow for a Z. ubdiv`r or 7730 Silver Lake Road; Planning Case No.
485-97" ;xY ,'K' �"
Moti `Carried: 6 aye ,g `y
Ay
:oStaff Report/ln nation Items
.< }}; ;` , • ;t Community Development Director Sheldon informed the Commission that
` : kti� she attended a class given by the American Planning Association's
Minnesota Chapter and the Met Council on Comprehensive Plans and new
legislation that has recently been passed. She indicated that they reviewed
the regional growth forecast and regional development blue print and that
Met Council has four system-wide plans they put together water supply, •
sewage treatment, airports, and transportation. She added that the new
• Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 3
legislation has changed the precedence given to zoning over Comp Plans
and has reversed it. She informed the Planning Commission that she would
read the materials and update them at their next meeting. `
tt%
OT
b. She mentioned to the Planning Commission that St,^f; .nto Council
Monday evening requesting summer helpodeit nt, minor plan
review, and buildinginspections and th. Obuncil a w ``
P �`' 9..���' �.x,:<�x:Ksomeone.:h��•
She also informed them that she is al•lannin• k s`equet < �a :r:r
x. .�xx.,xo. .„„de
recording secretary for the Planning t a miss e& "meetings } t,
Department Secretary because of wo- , here is also atlity
of hiring some temporary secretarial ti'
6. Chairperson and Planning Commissi• • Repo ` .
Chair Peterson reported that me • u .,. he M Y 1, 1997, meeting
included Commissioners Brookohnst•n: ��� : };. `i Srasaemle, Stevenson
and Chair Peterson. ` '
• Also present were Com " Devoment [Vector Sheldon, Planning Associate
Ericson and Council Li-v Koo• ' `nets. `
Cq _;
sioner =_-ked C• _ on Koopmeiners if the Council is
tssl
co-`e: `:� e wit { b t of cid-- opment on the D.W. Jones property. Mr.
KoQ ' comm-; :.-:s ; ?= he has some concerns with how much is planned for
the property `that t.4. :. ;4 speak for the rest of the City Council. The
Planni mi cion bne0J Itscussed the D. W. Jones proposal.
x..E x��xxx sx.::.:. x� P P
pa.- Y . _ . . • . — _... ..• • . ._ _ _ . ..— • . • — . Smith
ya ;xxYtxxxxxazxtx ,` 7
..,vYiil• .a+
re resentin th`"1 = propertyalon with Commissioner Stevenson, Mayoror
f McCarty, Counnember
Koopmeiners and Glen Van Wormer, Traffic Engineer for
=2= v SEH. She brier reviewed what was discussed at this meeting with the ring road
tt
being the metopic of the meeting.
wara
t t }.
oner Johnston inquired as to how the ring road will effect the public
il •.. a `. g process since the public has not seen this concept. Director Sheldon
indicated that the ring road will be on the development plan. She added, however,
that the developer has designed the plan so that the buildings did not move. The
- Planning Commission briefly discussed the ring road.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 1997 .
Regular Meeting Page 4
Commissioner Johnston informed the Commission that he will not be in
attendance at the next Planning Commission meeting.
._ S,
7. Adjournment < „ ;. r'
There being no further business before the PlarCom .i. cting Chair
420,--- Y..•x:xx t< Yx.
Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m,titi ,"Y {=rz` Y";
"%,-It:\f ,‘s,-
Respectfully submitted, = �:.::.
Y
c;;,::A %.•:zser
Pamela Sheldon
Community Development Director,``,, i:, ;e.
: ,
: ` xxE 16 : xYY
. M.07 1:gr.iMe
, M1Jv:' ,.4.
x tK
, h w �:
:x jw»i3 y�xx.2:`xV.A 7 ` p
<`i4[3^' YYYYYxYYYYY�YYY},,�i�Y�Y..'.
<;4�y`7° `. `Y`;YYS\µ ms.\. c•\
.,M' iwzzzz�z
Ake.:ANA% .,:::.*
;xxx,.
iz•••,xs
•
I
• PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
June 18, 1997
hMounds w City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds \Z ew, MN 55112
; : u. ../
1. Call to Order `?�,� `
The meeting was called to order by Acting C: �: ;:.x„ ``
.Steu�"'son at 7:1 C `'' "
2. Roll Call
Members present: Commissioners Brooks'`
•-•...bert "'` ,:\
, tl Stevenson. (Chair
Peterson and ' "�`�"��`.`�����_
Commissioner Brasaemle..a ; .ohnston`xsed absences).
Also Present: Community Develo�rit r Idonnh anning Associate
Ericson, Recording Secretary H, `esch a• Y..Cou n Koopmeiners.
• ,..
3. Citizen Requests and . .s* Ihentsdi Itemst on the Agenda
my 4k
Ther were no citi • " -"
tossquests ; : s from the floor.
`z#., 4..:s.1::::? via ss,•.,,.,,.
Index to Minutesi • .:.. `Akar'__r' Page
Planning zx 3," ti, Vana � in Front Setback to Allow
Busines fdentific •.$i. for Spot's Quick Lube, 2975 Highway 10 2
Bo; ie Reiter, 2728 I? ooalcrest Drive, was in the audience. She has made application
y:'S
tc>` City for a cone nal use permit to allow operation of a cat kennel on her property.
M&Reiter had the '"derstanding that her case would be discussed at this meeting. Staff
:>« 2 1st, r that her case would be discussed at the July 16, 1997, Planning
`Q mt 4.V eting.
1111
.
t
Mounds View Planning Commission June 18, 1997 .
Regular Meeting Page 2
4.
Planning Case No. 488-97 AP-
2975 Highway 10 <A' ;; ''
Applicant: Spot's Quick Lube `k` Yy
ae
Variance in Front Setback to Allow Business Identificatign ftp�`# ;.Quick Lube
3, 4111 "..µ4t4':Actl44 .t,,; .-I:
The applicant, Ron Ostrander, was not res�`g` ''. *Malty'
�```,lty'
� i` request informing the
Community Development Director Sheldon rev�1.��;;f
Commission that the applicant is requesting ` "` Y he front setback to
;.., rYYY,,,,,`YYY` Y�Y.,
place their business identification sign withiret feet` f of "`• t property line along
Highway 10 where 15 feet is required by.,��ode. D eldon indicated that
the identification sign for the previou as also t er than the 15 feet.
The applicant is proposing to mov `tfo" , way 1#because of visibility
problems due to large trees beirocatet € ` : s to the north and south
of Mr. Ostrander's roe 1 » �: '
property.rty. Lector S.kildon ad •rmed the Commission that
the support pad for the pe,R`µ I sign`s alrea• been poured because the •
applicant had noticed thf.,;..i..‹;11em csed by 0 trees and had moved the sign
without realizing that a •ance w eede ;`Yr
Dir: Sheldon` d the Ceibn that Staff feels the variance for this sign
Com a Stevetur:"""commented that he had looked at the situation in the
field '' ,,,,,`
at . ed' t there a problem with seeing the sign because of the
tre 4`Co""",.,� `• `". Miller had also viewed the situation and felt the trees would
3struct t. - - . t9i<Y£P8:', OA •n a - a'a ■ , .. a _ - _ • . _ _ es. _ - .-r forward.
v` Commissioner6bert commented that Mr. Ostrander has done an good job
}=r developing the roperty. He indicated that he does not a have a problem with the
<Y`Y ; location of thign because he feels this is a special situation due to the large
YY,.�'t'YYY'a«.Y
'Y>: g111µ es loc `"d on the property. However, he thinks the Commission needs to be
mmOletiagarding the granting of variances along Highway 10 since the City may
`Y,i: ;taiffe future variance requests because of the Highway 10 redevelopment and
he does not want to see business signs strewn along the highway.
Motion/Second: Miller/Obert to approve Resolution No. 511-97, "Resolution Approving a
Reduction in the Minimum Setback for a Pylon Sign from 15 Feet to 5 Feet for Spot's •
Quick Lube, Inc. at 2975 Highway 10; Planning Case No. 488-97".
Mounds View Planning Commission June 18, 1997
• Regular Meeting Page 3
Motion Carried: 4 ayes, 0 nays
5. Staff Report/Information Items ,,
4116., A1OF
a. Community Development Director Sheldon..updated _ ` ?: ring
Commission on the proposed Ring Road pr ect. She giscussed the
proposed signalization and reali nmen d ewoo .:'',``
9 �>� g ;;;r '� • �-:�� Highway VP
zz't i:vr :aw..
QCs# :� '.�`�:. „� S`'
v^tUtw awµaz` zsw: `
rPand Planning Commissioner%=,..400,1,07vi, s z`}`""`�"'"``
6. Chairperson ` . =r-.
Members present at the June 4, 1997, includ ,' ners Brooks, Obert,.
Miller, Brasaemle, Stevenson and Johnston (Chair:# n had an excused
absence). ``.: 1 ;%" "''`` %
` k .:Nip
Also were Community Dem pre , or She on, Planning
Associate
„ # . ' 'Ericson and Council Liaison Ko eine :rkiy w
Ar 4
0 :. :rx ..hz r :z.
7. Adjournment 4`a :: W
OZ. 0. V
Therbein no fu ' rsiness cks •ref" •" "'
g � Planning Commission, Chair Peterson
add.:' -d the I'll : 4. 7:30 p:• ` ::
. . :...
;ti..:
Respectfully s r}
r
Pamela Sheldonrx
Community Development Director
•