Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-1997 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 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.488-97 2975 Highway 10 Variance in setback for business identification sign Applicant: Spot's Quick.Lube 6. Staff Reports/Information Items • 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports • 8. 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. * * * * * ** * * * ** * * ** * * * * * *** *** * * * * ** * * * * * * N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\AGENDA6.18 • • • , MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • JUNE 18, 1997 7:00 P.M. AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: May 21, 1997 2. 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 3. Meeting Adjournment • 1110 i ii• PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION , CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 7, 1997 Mound w City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mods mow, MN 55112 teal h'a• ' :s.s.0, 1. .%Alt tr\1. Call to Order { <> x :Ng . • {? ? V•*. ftptivrimvA, ,.: The meeting was called to order by Chair P. ..on a 7 4 p.m. ..... 2. Roll Call .. Members present Commissioners Brooks zObert '�;": `•- .aemle and Chair Peterson. (Commissioners Stevenson andoohnston Wh `d absences). ? f t'Also Present: Community DevelopMent � eldon a anning Associate ` ' '� Ericson and Council Liaison Ko Meiners . ?a • :I 3. Citizen Requests and smthents� n Items.: ,•: t on the Agenda There were no citiz,=•squests * a: s from the floor. .4*-ak,s's ., ....k,aci-.,.. ?"tee ,: ?. Page Index to Mint; �;WO-- " iiii,.� � Planning Case -,:-::,,..:::::*.,,......:..e Cond al Use Permit for an oversized garage, Anthonyo k mp z kdan Avenue • r a Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 2 5. Planning Case No. 479-97 Y, 2908 Ardan Avenue 4 AV Applicant: Anthony Honkomp .„.' : M .•kY Request for a Conditional Use Permit Extension for an: �sized••�" % •94 square ' feet). `.`.�, :2�. 1 The applicant, Anthony Honkomp, was not p ; te Planning Associate Ericson briefly reviewed t .,'i : ;> ,- ;-,,d informed the Commission that the garage was nearly complete.'Y',. . ;, •n reviewed Resolution No. 501-97 and reminded th- .o missionittalier,asemission had been approved twice before and that the t' 2' €ctto const a garage has now elapsed, therefore, the applicant i •�`Y" sueEw : `Iw$`�`` • er cq9dlional use permit. Commissioner Brasaemle e # essed;;`` rn nce �Y i,a precedent that approval of 4, this request may set regar t �-the tw ;.double- •e doors and the 40 foot width. •.,,...:. v Motion/Second: Miller/Peters Viz$.) to ave R.-, ution No. 501-97 recommending approval of.�a conditiona ...'s eg v:-rmit t.A-t1 # ersized garage for Anthony Honkom• ',.,q:1,,,!: Arda } Plann' .:' No. 479-97. 4 ayes, 1 nissiorrr ;expressed his concern with the possible precedent being set by 40tompf this r*Vitittp 4amo�.Y>YYY Y,,, Y.Y:Y, ' Yzz` kita* v: - . . i • f x;'#s:u:: -ms Ar YkAY . r a.; ` ' Proposal for Scheduling Certain Cases for One Meeting; Having Regular Meetings u 'z ' Every Two Was (when needed): Community Development Director Sheldon IiIK Y� K explained the perhaps some of the minor cases such as conditional use permits 0:0.Witfili4,061#10.gthe wi:: ove. garages, some variances, etc. could be scheduled for just one >Y``OYY , i`" .,4 i.Y�Y>,U x n the interest of minimizing Staff time for preparing the reports, minimizing YYYYYY .�Y YYY.,.'` ��`�Y=kteie to process the cases for the applicant, and also helping to stay within the 60-day time frame which is required by State law. The Commission agreed that this would be a good idea and they asked Staff to prepare an amendment to their bylaws to reflect this change. b. University of Minnesota Design Course: Director Sheldon indicated that Ill Commissioners Brooks and Stevenson have attended the meetings regarding the 7 • Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 3 redesigning of Highway 10. Ms. Sheldon presented some sketches done by Bill Morrish, the head of the design center, of what might be done with the corridor to create more of a village center. 0 c. Work Session Topics Sent to City Council: changing who a.:$.ove..:, : nor wetland buffer permits, registering of mobile homes with ill- City arIttk i:,. ; inspections to alleviate the sale of mobile homes by the Park ,v:{ -re i a,qp.m•$ +ition, revising the fee schedule to adjust building permit and.„Rrelopmen g=. .,=. ` .; ..e, and N changing the Housing Code to clarify that in-',-ction of.,.4`• er • :• : .� . townhomes and condominiums is not requir=$ `� % '"``` z"A d. Abatements: Planning Associate Ericson inf., r 00,:. Commission t.. � ,i. - ity Council recently approved abatement for 234 ~ : rive and 8217 Long Lake Road. <,:z ` -. ' M1s1 V :k`v:},~i Z:k 6. Chairperson and Planning Commies, ports Chair Peterson reported that missio..:-r Brasa t ,Stevenson, Johnston, Miller, �' �` ��'"� Obert and Chair Petersir were �sentanl 16, 1997 agenda • to meeting and that Commiss pger Miller ad an excused absence. i": ,.�2`? titita : : ten. Commissioner Obert. mend-�$``'on He. •�u of Town's Edge Terrace Man factured Ho " 4 . He i ; _ s 1 over the last 6 to 12 months Mr. H- Y has be•,,,"'= `'I 've in C?e.42r ment by attending several Planning e•~.: .: •n an. a cil mei i gs. He also pointed out that Mr. Herreau has es :.• com ' `...� g -I dean up Town's Edge Terrace which shows that he takes .:` . the Chit.Thr40. " zar i i'c, aAass 5'z rx 7. Ad urn merit ` r0 There being no }business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meti•ng at 8:10 p.m. Al `Y;J „..4.1f. . i`z "i•y sw- iiii<: REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ►5 Meeting Date: June*.8, 1997 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 488-97 Request: Variance from Sign Setback Requirement Petitioner: Spot's Quik Lube, Inc. Location: 2975 Highway 10 PIN No. 06-30-23-23-0005 Zoning/Land Use: B-3, Highway Business District/ Spot's Quik Lube, Inc. Applicable Regulations: Section 1080.08, Subd. 1; Sign location and standards Section 1125.02, Subd. 2; Criteria for granting variances Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map • Site Plan Letter from Applicant Resolution 511-97 Background: The applicant, Ron Ostrander, General Manager of Spot's Quik Lube, Inc., is requesting a 10- foot variance in the setback for a pedestal sign because the location of the sign as shown on the site plans approved by the City Council on April 10, 1997 offers limited visibility. Refer to the attached site plan. A stand of trees immediately north of the property and also across the street from the •ro•e effectivel obscur- •• • • : ; •e. .• . . . _ . perpendicular to the property. The 10-foot variance requested is the minimum that would alleviate the hardship. Issues: The Section of the Code that specifies locations and setback for advertising signs was created to established a uniform and consistent approach to the siting of signs in Mounds View. The intent of the 15-foot setback from any streetline (interpreted as right-of-way) is to restrict visual impairments and distractions to passing motorists. It is the point at which a balance between maintaining clear sight-lines and a business owner's ability to advertise has been achieved. In the • case of Spot's, however, because of the extensive Highway 10 right-of-way, the setback would locate the sign approximately 80 feet from the shoulder of the highway. Spot's proposes to locate the sign at 5 feet off the property line and 70 feet from Highway 10. Planning Commission Report • Planning Case No.488-97: Spots Quick Lube,Inc. June 18, 1997 Page 2 Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 511-97 granting approval of a variance from the 15-foot setback requirement to 5 feet for a pylon sign for Spots Quick Lube, Inc. N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\488-97\SPOTS.RPT • art Cr _ [ © . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION :JEW2401 B ghway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 4•Pare+e601 612-784-3055 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant90175- NCS`- Telephone (012- ?1 Z"(0 Address H-F• t�-+1 l0 Fax �M U U r1CVs A2._(),) '\N Interest in Property(check appropriate box) Owner of Property a Contract for Deed Owner - a Lessee,Operator,Manager a 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. IIP Property Description/ProposaI Address or General Location . 1 S" t t` ( I D Legal Description Property Identification#(PIN#) • #of Acres Current Zoning Present Use Type of Application a UndeveIoped/Vacant t] Comprehensive Plan Amendment $200 a Single Family Dwelling 0 Rezoning $200/ac;min$200 max$1000 Duplewo Family Dwelling a Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* a Multi-family Dwellings 0 Minor Subdivision $150 mss. Business/Commercial Establishment a Planned Unit Development(PUD) $350 a Industrial Establishment a PUD Amendment $150 a Other(explain) o Conditional Use Permit R-I,R-2$75;all others$200 Variance R-1,R-2$75;all others$200 a • Code Appeal $75 0 Develop Review/Site Plan $100/ac;min$100 max$500 a Wetland Alteration Permit $50+deposit* a Wetland Buffer Permit 7 a 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 CIassification 0 Abstract 0 Torrens Description of Proposal A.;'�, t L €P-* C_, ;cir— a BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY I{NOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PRO is::* ; ;...: ^•. . Signature of Applicant `� -� ! -- - - -- Name of Applicant(typed/printed) \'SON 71\(lamC2Epip__Ices .1� Signature of Property Owner ` e1`le.'rO S MGD_ , Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) S.?CriTS 113 C— , • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal — 30 Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. z:1.-. 3'— q7 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid Account# Check# �� C✓ Application: ,Q 4 ' , , Park Dedication: Deposits: Other. • Total: C:,OFFICEIWPWIMWPDOCSIADMIIVIFORMS\DEVAPP.FOR 1/97 M I i o�vv • 8370 8371 8374 8383 8372 8371 I 8368j� 836900 8360 8368 8371 8368 8351 I 8346 8365 8354 • (1/ 8360 8360 Y9359 8360 8344 8351 8346 Lam_ 83508340 g 8347 8358 8355 8341 I 8343 8342 Q 8335 8339 8334 8340 8345 8334 8335 8332 8330 8335 8336 8325 8330 8333 I 8330 8333 8322 8320 8325 8316 8315 8322 g 8321 1 8325 8300 �_ Cl— 8310 8315 8311 8308 831 4011=0011monoce tiO 8300 8305 8312 8297 8298 8301 GROVELAND - 8289 8280 8285 PARKrii- ..-<-1_ 8284 8285 8290 PF 8281 8250 8261 Nc 8280 8275 4o; W F— 8270 8265 8230 8241 N N 8270 Q 8265 r-- ' ARDAN • 8260 6 8255 8248 • 0 0 0 .,::.' n I N N 'i' • co 0 8 Z fn co co co • o m as 8244 ago o3 °D co co t 8250 a 8245 (y N N N N N N N N N N N N f • 8240 P 8233 8228k 8245 8206 8227 — 82 4;: 8213 8202 Q 8200 8210 8217 8198 8205 _. y 8201 :191 8192 08031 8208 ' — • rs to,.� N 81238200 8180 8175 8160 w m cy N NN 8200 .Q 811- 81 s0 N. ' 8148 p r LAPORT 8117 _ 8161 orZi ^o g f i cc .- 0 8 • • 00 _1 8 N N 8138 N N N N`N \ � 8141 moo o a!ACE 2863 8132 8127 v > • //• 8131 N1 N N N 1.2 28 811, M N N O) O If, X N IM co 8106 NlN i'.9 . N N c 0 \\ \ 81111 `� > 8100 z rn lV N \\\ • M 888 N N m m • N N \ ; rn `r °' 8060 8065 8084 n\ N 1 : 8040 t 8046 ( I \ •\ • B-3 R_Q.: 8030 8045 80364 \\ • • 8026 • 1 N • \ , 8020 8025 8016 . ( ( \I— \ •- 7980 8005 8000 Q ( ( 7990 ( ( FR • 7980 ( A, -7460 III Zoning Map Case No. 488-97 2975 Highway 10 -- Spot's Quik Lube, Inc. Applicant: Ron Ostrander N ' )' I . N89'01'4TE 166.00 i I I • 8: (\ I . I" CP I 1 0 P y § 1 c., • J 74.2 ,G 4I 41 m • 1.5q BIT \NG . -...- -C I - <----t f" 0 . . . . . • Y. ) • iz >,i: • • _ 1 e Location of pylon sign, - iair 15 feet from porperty line, ‘ , 30.0 .7- per site plan approved I IS I 4/10/97. a, 41. n I § > P74, 0 4:0 1 I ...:.*:.::.•,.. 1 ..,.. . > Proposed location of pylon sign, I , 5 feet from property line. \ \I\I 1 N • Site Plan: Case No. 488-97 2975 Highway 10 -- Spot's Quik Lube, Inc. N4 Applicant: Ron Ostrander t • June 11, 1997 City of Mounds View Planning Commission 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View,MN 55112 Re: 2975 Highway 10 Mounds View,MN Dear Planning Commission: We have submitted an application for a sign variance. The reasons for needing this variance are as follows. 1. To comply with the set back requirements that the city has set forth would restrict visibility of our sign. 2. Due to an over sight on my part, I inadvertently had the sign footing placed five feet from the right of way. The code reads that the sign footing should be placed fifteen • feet from the right of way. 3. I have researched the cost of moving the footing and found it to be more than my budget will allow. I have also taken measurements of the sight line from where the sign footing is now versus where it would be if we were made to comply with the sign code. If we were to move the sign it would reduce the visibility in both directions over a quarter mile. I have driven this route repeatedly with someone standing in both the existing footing location and the proposed location. If I was to move this footing to the proposed location the tree line does not give adequate stopping distance to enter our business. We feel that visibility is going to be very important to the success of Spot's Quick Lube. We also do not want people to feel uncomfortable trying to navigate their way into the Spring Lake Park Road deceleration lane. By leaving the sign where it is would give people considerably more time to make a safe transition from traffic. Sincerely, Ron Ostrander • General Manager Spot's Quick Lube, Inc. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 511-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM SETBACK FOR A PYLON SIGN FROM 15 FEET TO 5 FEET FOR SPOT'S QUIK LUBE,INC. AT 2975 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 488-97 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of Ron Ostrander representing Spot's Quik Lube, Inc., located at 2975 Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, this property is zoned B-3, Highway Business District and is legally described as: Lot 13 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated with this request: 1. Planning Application • 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Hardship Statement WHEREAS, the applicant presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission stating that the original location of the proposed pylon sign offers little visibility to passing traffic; 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 businesses typically have signage which is visible from adjacent streets, and the subject property is bordered on both sides by wooded areas that block the view from Highway 10 and adjustments in the setback for the sign is necessary to overcome these obstructions; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the wooded areas blocking the view of the business are not on the applicant's property and thus cannot be removed; 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 having business signage with reasonable visibility is a typical situation for rt • Planning Commission Resolution 511-97 June 18, 1997 Page 2 businesses along Highway 10 and meets the the intent of the City's sign code; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship in that the sight-lines from passing motorists are greatly improved at a five foot setback from the property line; 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 the right-of-way for Highway 10 is wider than normal, creating a larger buffer area between the paved roadway and the propety line. The visual setback is 70 feet; 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 sign will be located approximately 70 feet from the Highway 10 pavement and should not cause any detrimental impacts to motorists or neighboring property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission 41 acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves the variance request of Ron Ostrander, representing Spot's Quik Lube, Inc. located at 2975 Highway 10 to allow a reduction in the setback requirement for the proposed pylon sign from 15 feet to 5 feet. Adopted this 18th day of June, 1997 Jerry Peterson, Chairman ATTEST Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\USERSTAMS\SHARE\DEVCASES\488-97\SPOTS-RE.W PD • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: June 1997 Staff Report by: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director 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: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plans(Separate Attachment) Revised Landscape Plan(Separate Attachment) Letter from Applicant Background: The applicant, MSP Real Estate, Inc., has requested approval of a development review for the Silver Lake Commons development at 2625 -2665 Highway 10. A total of 16 new two-level rental townhomes will be created on the now vacant properties just south of the existing Red Oak Apartments, which will be completely rehabilitated as a part of this project. New hipped-style roofs and new siding will be added to the apartment buildings to match the design of the proposed townhomes. With the existing 40 apartment units, this project will be comprised of 56 dwellings on 3.78 acres for a density of 15.0 dwellings per acre. Each of the townhouse units will have an attached single-stall garage and the apartments will have 41 new garages to replace the existing garages. This project does not require a rezoning. Multi-family dwelling structures containing six . or fewer dwelling units are an allowed use in the R-3, Medium Density Residential District. The development plan prepared by the applicant includes both the existing Red Oak Apartments and the new townhomes because changes are being made to the layout of the Red Oak Apartments as part of this proposal. 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. Planning Commission Report Silver Lake Commons Development Review Planning Case No. 487-97 • June 18, 1997 Page 2 Staff has scheduled this project for two meetings, with discussion on June 18 and and a decision on July 2nd or 16th, depending on the number of issues which need to be resolved prior to this case being ready for Planning Commission action. Analysis: • Dimensional Requirements: 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 • Building height: 45 feet 30 feet Yes Minimum floor area per D.U.: Three bedroom units: 870 sq.ft. 1,320 sq.ft. Yes Four bedroom units: 920 sq.ft. 1,620 sq.ft. Yes Parking requirements: Uncovered: (1.5 per unit) 84 spaces 68 spaces No* Covered: (1.0 per unit) 56 spaces 57 spaces Yes *With proof of parking, a total of 86 spaces can be provided. 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 follows north at this point, and water then goes through a culvert under Highway 10 to the D.W. Jones property and wetland. The drainage diagram and the preliminary stormwater summary analysis was forwarded to Rocky Keehn at SEH, Inc., the City's engineer. Mr. Keehn's response addresses a number of concerns pertaining to drainage and grading. (Refer to the attached report from Rocky Keehn.) With regards to the drainage, Mr. Keehn indicated that because of the positioning of the buildings, runoff from the property north of the site is appears to be blocked, which could cause flooding. The site also receives runoff from Eastwood Road via a bituminous swale that cuts into the property. The site plan shows the detention pond over the swale which would necessitate a change in the existing drainage from Eastwood Road. While a number of alternatives can be employed to deal with this, • the applicants will need to coordinate with the City's Public Works Department to resolve the problem. • Planning Commission Report Silver Lake Commons Development Review Planning Case No. 487-97 • June 18, 1997 Page 3 • The grading of the site also received comments, specifically the lack of slopes for the ditch, parking lot and pipes. The parking lot is relatively flat which provides for poor drainage. Problems such as standing water and ice patches in the winter may result from the flat slope. In addition, the site plan does not show any contours for the pond proposed at the southeast corner of the development. Given its location near pedestrian traffic and within a residential development, safety is a top priority. Mr. Keehn suggests that at a minimum, a 10:1 slope should be used with a water depth of no more than four feet. Mr. Keehn's final comment concerned the summary-nature of the hydrologic calculations. All of the drainage calculations and input data used to determine elevations and pond size will,need to be provided. 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. The applicant is seeking a discussion with Dale Jones, the property owner, about this idea. Mr. Keehn recommended this approach because he felt it would be better if the detention pond were off the site, given it is being developed with multiple family housing. Staff is proposing that these drainage issues be addressed between this meeting of Planning • Commission and your next meeting. Access: Access to the site will be accomplished with a single entryway south of the existing Red Oak Apartments entryway. The drive access will be in between the apartments and the townhome units. The existing driveway servicing Red Oak Apartments will be removed. The driveway is shown at a 24-foot width. Comments received back from the Fire Marshal raised two issues, one of which concerned the access. The Fire Marshal would prefer a 28-foot wide access road which would allow for better access to emergency vehicles. The applicant will need to adjust the site plan to accommodate any necessary changes made to the access roads. The Fire Marshal's other concern regarded the provision of a fire hydrant on the property. Landscape Plan: The 11" x 17" plans submitted by the applicant include a landscape plan which has been forwarded to the Rick Wriskey, Mounds View's City Forester. In addition, the applicant provided on Friday, June 13, a revised landscaping plan(24" x 36")which changed some of the plant materials. The original landscape plan was referred to the City Forester for review. We have not had an opportunity to refer the later plan, but will after the Planning Commission meeting on June 18. The applicant has indicated a desire to retain significant trees on the site where possible. Staff received the following comments from the City Forester on the proposed landscape plan: • Trees proposed to be preserved must be fenced during construction. Care must be taken to • protect the area surrounding each tree equal to its dripline. No heavy machinery or equipment shall enter within these areas so as to protect fragile root systems. • Planning Commission Report Silver Lake Commons Development Review Planning Case No. 487-97 • '� June 18, 1997 • Page 4 • If flowering crabapple trees are to be used, the species should not be either sparkler or radiant which are susceptible to disease. (The proposed species on the revised plan is Spring Snow Crabapple.) • Pin oaks should be changed to red oak or bicolor oak. • Regal elm(on revised plan) should be changed to Hackberry. Staff has a number of concerns with the plantings proposed on the site, which are described below. We will have a diagram at the meeting to illustrate how we feel the plan needs to be revised. • Arborvitae edge along Highway 10 was intended to screen the view of the parking lot from the highway, but it is not very well anchored along the frontage. (Its position appears to be random and not well-related to the building frontage.) Staff suggests that a grove of trees be planted between the two existing apartment buildings on either side of the walkway to get the same effect. Plantings of spruce and crabapple should then be planted on either end of the Highway 10 frontage and on either side of the driveway, to create"brackets" for that frontage and identity for the project. • The lilacs along the south half of the Highway 10 frontage were intended as screening, but staff is concerned that they will grow so high, they will apppear to create a walled "compound" look to the development. We would suggest lower growing, dense shrubs that Ili would provide an edge, keep children off the highway, but also beautify the site. The two blue spruce in the center would be moved, and additional trees added in groupings at either end of the frontage. We will be asking the City Forester for some suggestions on types of shrubs which will do well in this confined space. • There needs to be some type of fencing along the Highway 10 edge where it abuts the existing apartment buildings. We have been talking with the applicant about the overall Highway 10 design theme, and that we expect it to include a bike path and fencing. We have also talked with MnDOT about entering into a license agreement to allow use of some of the highway right-of-way. They appear receptive. We are trying to avoid the situation where we require fencing from the applicant and then later have the City install fencing as part of the Highway 10 design theme. Staff continues to be concerned, however, that fencing is needed along this stretch because of the number of children in the existing apartments and the frequent occasions when children are observed playing in the front lawn area with no separation from Highway 10. • The wood fence along the back property line needs to be extended further toward Eastwood to screen the four parking spaces next to the 4-unit building. • The arborvitae edge along the chain link fence needs to be anchored on either end with crabapple trees, or a combination of crabapple and spruce. The City Forester has said that • the species proposed is suitable for creating a hedge effect and for providing screening. Planning Commission Report Silver Lake Commons Development Review • • Planning Case No. 487-97 June 18, 1997 Page 5 • The chain link fence needs to be residential height (and not schoolyard height)to avoid creating a"compound" effect. Parking: Each of the new townhouse-styled multi-family units will have an attached garage and uncovered parking space. In addition, 10 additional uncovered parking spaces will be provided, two more than what is required. At present, as far as we know, there are 78 parking spaces on the Red Oak apartment property, with 44 in surface parking and 34 in the garages. The applicant proposes to replace the existing covered garages for the apartment buildings with 41 new covered garages. The site plan shows only 39 uncovered parking spaces for the existing apartments for a total of 80 spaces. There is room for an additional 18 spots if necessary. Using the extra parking provided in the new housing area, enough parking overall can be provided to satisfy the parking requirements set forth in Section 1121.13 of the Zoning Code for this development. The overall number of covered garages proposed for this development meets the minimum required. A variance in parking requirements will need to be approved to allow use of proof of parking. This variance would be prepared for your consideration when this project is ready for decision by the Planning Commission. • 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. The needs for easements for water, sewer and drainage for the development would be addressed at that time. There is a St. Paul Waterworks easement which cuts across the corner of the property at Highway 10 and Eastwood Road. Staff needs to refer this project to them for comment, and will do so before your next meeting. Conclusions: At this stage, staff is favorable toward this project with some modifications to the landscaping I .1 1 / I Y.1 • `✓. • • ' •1 .11 .1' - I .1 .1 I I •111 I I - 1 • - .111 - ^• "f. Both the zoning and the Towle Report (done as part of the Area 9-Highway 10 Study) anticipate the use of this property for multiple family housing. The proposal meets the development requirements of the City's Zoning Code. Separate from this process, Cathy Bennett, Economic Development Director,will be working with the applicant to bring forward their proposal for purchase of the City land and for TIF financing to the Economic Development Authority. cc: Cathy Bennett N:IDATAIUSERSIPAMS\SHAREIDEVCASES1487-97\COMMONS.RPT CM Cr WNW CO DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4 • DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION rAltr:3 2401 HIghway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 *144-paintcs*4 612-784-3055 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant MSP RePl Estate. Tnr_ Telephone ep 337-5144 Address 311 5th Avenue North Fax 336-4565 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Interest in Property(check appropriate box) a Owner of Property a Contract for Deed Owner a 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 Aproperty owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location Highway 10/County Road I Legal Description See Attached Property Identification#(PIN#) See Attached • #of Acres 3 Current Zoning R-4, R-3 Present Use Type ofApplication di Undeveloped/Vacant a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5200 a Single Family Dwelling a Rezoning $200/ac;min$200 max 51000 a Duple:t/Two Family Dwelling o Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* Q Multi-family Dwellings a Minor Subdivision $I SO a Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) $350 a Industrial Establishment a PUD Amendment $150 a Other(explain) c Conditional Use Permit R-1,R-2$75;all others$200 a Variance R-1,R-2$75;all others$200 a Code Appeal $75 Qt Develop Review/Site Plan $100/ac;min$100 max$500 o Wetland Alteration Permit $50+deposit* ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit 7 ❑ Floodplain Permit $200 • a Other *see Municipal Code for explanation of deposits Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,MN Development Application Page 2 • • Property Classification ;¢ Abstract o Torreus Description of Proposal See Attached BY MY(OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVID 2, IS r 1 • ► A CURATE. Signature of Applicant /' I) // �•' Name of Applicant(typed/printed) MSP Real Estate, Inc. Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) _ r • • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid Account# Check# Application: Park Dedication: Deposits: Other 111 Total: C OFFICEIWPWWWPDOCSIADMINWORMSIDEVAPP.FOR 1/97 — — SHERWOOD r . - ^ N N 8080 8081 N a 8088 8075 E N 8099 �I 8085 2 '2 8086 �� N N N N 'Ca • I. 8085 8070 8071 8066 8071 8068 8071 8072 8071 8072 C ^ _ 8075 8060 8059 8050 8055 8060 8065 • 8050, 8060 0: - ,g 8045 8040 8042 8045 8052 8051 8044 8045 8046 i 8039 - 8025 8032 8033 8040 8035 8032 8031 8038 i 8015 8028 0 8025 8018 8011 8000 8021 8022 8019 8030 P--::: 8005 8016 8009 8006 8000 8001 801Q 1 7985 8004 7981 7990 0 7981 7990 Ca 7989 7996 0: 7993 7990 ,, 7975 7970 7979 7980 7969 7980 7979 7980 cl 7985 7970 i 7965 7960 7959 7970 7965 7966 7969 7960 7961 7964 - , 7955 7956 crilj 7949 7954 7959 7950 7951 7954 7940 7945 7946 7927 H I LLV I EW 7933 79507940 Z 7930 7935 7930 7917 PARK _ 03 0 0 rn N n 7901 r g c c 7900 7901 pi 7900 PF .' N.6 N N N 7900 7901 7900 N N N N N _ HILLVIEW ROAD _ Nr T co uo N 7866`ii p:MU E 1E2 7895 N N ill 17890 7885N 7864 •~ 7876 Z 7885 7866 7867 7870 7869 7858 8-2 = 7877 7854 7851 7860 7865 7852 w N 7870 N 7850 7855 7846 Y • AN ->•:5' 78631E2 7841 g • -> O 7830 CO 7840 7835 7840 Sr • d ` =-30; NM R 7815 7790 7815 7800 ry . 411111MITE•0 0 7805 7780 I fip% • j 7809 7770 3 7801 7760 7800 8-2 4 ..' 7801 w 7751 7750 f16. •'• AO7767 7760 0 7741 7740 9' 11 7761 7750 7731 7730 0 7801Ille1/4 cr A 7720 � 7755 7730 7721 8-24147745 _ 7710 7711 �� 7715 co : a°0 0 7700 N N .. . _ PUD _ _ �-;•mss �n,T� 12u�i�i 2 2553 �nul in til �n�nu��nin O gB-3.' N N N N M N N N N N 2551 (. N R • N N 2549 gO /LI 2547 -1 ` ,. - � 2s45 e° B-4 2541 B-3 (1, 2539 N 2537 IP SILVER VIEW _ �� �. IP Zoning Map Case No. 487-97 2625 - 2665 Highway 10 N4 Applicant: MSP Real Estate, Inc. •• BKPV June 5, 1997 Ms. Pam Sheldon City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View,MN 55112 Dear Pam, Enclosed are 12 copies of revised and additional plans for MSP's Silver Lake Commons project. Arcnttecture Survey(with 2 full sized copies) Site Plan Interior Den Landscape Plan Drainage Plan with calculations Three bedroom floor plan En;rnee!rip Four bedroom floor plan The Landscape Plan shows the existing trees that we feel can be saved--these include a grouping of cottonwoods and elm at the site entry and many of the oak and pine trees in the play area. We • have shown overstory,ornamental and screen plantings on the plan,and have shown areas to be sodded around the buildings and the larger play area to be seeded. We will include additional foundation plantings around the buildings in the final landscape plan to be submitted for permitting. The Drainage Plan shows the existing drainage pattern on the existing site will be maintained—the site slopes from north to south with part of the flow being diverted west of the 23 unit building and part of it draining at the existing driveway. All existing water drains directly into the ditch in Highway 10. We are not significantly changing the pervious/impervious surfaces for the existing development. Paramount Engineering has calculated the additional runoff from the new development on the east portion of the site. This runoff will be captured in the ponding area at the : ... r. • . treatment and an additional.31 AF for a 100 year event. The.2 AF will be contained in the ponding area southeast of the 6-unit building while the ponding area for the 100 event will extend north of the building and possibly over the drive area south of the building(as shown by the dotted lines). The ponding area will be piped to drain into the ditch to flow west to the existing I5"pipe under Highway 10. Please call Bob Weigert at Paramount at 771 0544 if you have additional questions on the drainage issues. Please call me if you have questions or require additional information. Sinc- e y, ^inn'---• =- b;_,3_,_- ter J.Pfister,AIA • Pax:;;132?za c Jeff Huggett,MSP Bob Weigert, Paramount mspj05 O.ve^�.._.. Owc Peter i.-aster.:-,iA ;.ry _ -• ..-.tom Dtvic'....,nian..AA BOASNIAN ' V '- n c C o • - • MEMO To: Pamela Sheldon From: Mark Bishop. Fire Marshal Subject: Plan Review Case#487-97 Date: May 28, 1997 Access road width is minimally acceptable. We would be MUCH more comfortable with a 28 foot wide road. On site fire hydrants will be required. Our policy states that a fire hydrant must be provided for un-sprinklered buildings when more than 50%of the building is greater than 150 feet from a public way. • S 06/11/97 WED 14:25 FAX 612 490 2150 SEH ..-r-► HOUNDS VIEW 11002 • , rai Aim ► MEMORANDUM •ST.PAUL.MN 0 MINNEAPOLIA AIN D ST.CLOUg MN O C1 IPPEWA ALLA Al D MADISON,WI p LAKE COUNTY,IN TO: Pamela Sheldon,Mounds View Community Development Director FROM: Rocky Keehn,P.E. DATE: June 11, 1997 RE: Review of Silver Lake Common,Planning Case 487-97 SEH has reviewed the site survey and the proposed building locations for the above referenced project as requested. Based on the information provided to us on June 10, 1997, we recommend that the following issues be discussed in greater detail prior to final approval: ► Drainage of the property north of the site. ► Impacts of drainage from Eastwood Road. • The following items also will need to be provided to SEH prior to a finalizing our review: • A site grading planning with proposed elevations that show how the surface water runoff gets to the pond. ► A grading plan of the pond showing side slopes and pipe inverts. ► Hydrologic calculations that indicate the expected highwater elevations in the pond for the 1 and 100 year storm events. Drainage of the property north of the site Based on the elevations shown on the submitted survey and city contour map, a low area exist just north of the proposed site. The outflow elevation,based on the developers survey,is 910.9 feet. It appears the proposed plan blocks the drainage by placing a building over the natural overflow from this low area. The developer needs to show how they intend to maintain a 910.9 overflow elevation with aimilinr discharge capacity to prevent femme flooding of the areas north of the site. Impacts of drainage from Eastwood Road. A bituminous swale presently drains runoff from Eastwood Road to the Highway 10 ditch. The swale is located on the developers property. The proposed plan locates a pond over the swale and thus may 4111 require a change of the existing drainage outlet from Eastwood Road. Since this is a public road which discharges runoff over private property, the City should determine the best way to drain Eastwood Road. yr err • ..rte -.v V •ar• va. -•••••• ry.. -V r ...a.,4410141D,m .yyr Tjvvv Pamela Sheldon June 6, 1997 Page 2 We suggest the public works department make a preliminary investigation to determine if a curb cut will remain as the primary means to drain Eastwood Road in the future. Another option may be to install catch basins and storm sewers which discharge to the ditch. A review of the submitted survey data indicates that it may be difficult to construct catch basins due to the low elevation of Eastwood Road and high elevation of the Highway 10 ditch. If the curb cut remains,the existing swale needs to be relocated to drain around the pond if the city wishes to maintain a direct discharge to the highway ditch. Another option is to work with the developer and have the pond expanded to provide water quality improvements for both their site and the roadway. If Eastwood Road does drain into the pond,the developer's engineer must include this additional drainage area in their hydrologic calculations. Site Grading Plan Upon review of the plan,we do not have the ditch,parking lot,and pipe slopes. A quick check of the site indicates that the parking lot has a flat slope which does not provide good drainage.If a surface elevation of 910.8 is at the northern most end of the site and the pond discharge is at 908.0,the slope in the parking lot is 0.49 percent(3.8 feet/570 feet). This is a relatively flat slope and may cause drainage problems such as standing water and ice patches in the parking lot. A final grading plan should show how this site drains. Pond Grading Plan The developer provided a rough outline of the pond but did not provide final contours. Due to it's location near pedestrian traffic,a safe pond should be designed by the developer and reviewed by the City. The City needs to verify that the pond meets retention pond standards for safety and function. At a minimum the pond should include 10 to 1 side slopes in the first foot of retention volume(or be fenced), have a water depth of at least four feet,and discharge at an elevation that will be high enough to drain to the highway ditch. Hydrologic Calculations A summary of the hydrologic calculations were provided but this information contained no detailed data. We would lice to review all of the hydrologic calculations,including input data,that was used to determine the highwater elevation(s)and sediment pond size. RJK/rjk/JTD WATTMANOIRBCANIOCCII vNTOTITI KMAN3ZA O S vvivvia! 14:10 t'Ad 012 480 2150 SEH ST. PAUL 004/005 WI 5 qi Mounds View Hydrologic Review of: ._ 2626-2665 Highway 10 City Planning Project No, 487-97 • Project No. AMOUND9701.00 Pocket File: 80.13 Date 6/6/97 Reviewed b' RJK Does any of theplatted area show up on the NWI map? n YES j NO • Is any of the area impacted bathe cities wetland overlays areas? YES NO Are there an hydric soils within the platted area? YES m NO What LWMP drainage area is the Plat in? EW—1 Does the land use change from what was shown in the LWMP? YES NO If YES what are the land use changes: Are there araslrainage problems for the area identified in the LWMP YES T' NO If so what are they: Are there anicapital Improvement projects for the area identified in the LWMP YES T" NO If so what are they: Are there an revious drain a studies for the area besides the LWMP? YES NO If so what are they: Comments: The existing drainage is t n a culvert under Highway 10. •