HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-1997 s
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
September 3, 1997
7:00 P.M.
REGULAR 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 'IRE PODIUM,
AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES
. 4. Planning Cases No. 487-97 and 504-97
2637- 2655 Highway 10
Development Review of the revised site plan for Silver Lake Commons residential
development, and Minor Subdivision to combine two vacant lots into one onto
which ten townhouse-styled dwellings would be constructed.
Applicant: MSP Real Estate
5. Staff Reports/Information Items
a. Silverview Estates PUD update
6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
7. 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\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\AGENDA9.3
s
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
September 3, 1997
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA MEETING
AGENDA
Review of Minutes:
a. August 6, 1997
2. Meeting Adjournment
•
•
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
• Meeting Date: September 3, 1997
Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Planning Case: 487-97 and 504-97
Request: Development Review and Minor Subdivision
Petitioner: MSP Real Estate, Inc.
Location: 2637 - 2665 Highway 10
PIN Nos. 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 Commission Resolution 5.28-97
Planning Application
Zoning Map
Site Plans (Separate Attachment)
Certificate of Survey(Separate Attachment)
Background:
On July 28, 1997, the City Council approved the development review request for the Silver Lake
Commons residential development to be located on 2625 - 2665 Highway 10. This development
was to include the renovation of the existing Red Oak Apartments and the construction of 16 new
townhouse-styled dwellings on the vacant parcels south of apartments. Due to the discovery of
another development opportunity involving the City-owned parcel, the City Council put on hold
the sale of the land until this and any other opportunities have been fully explored. As a result,
MSP Real Estate, Inc., the applicant proposing the Silver Lake Commons development, has
requested approval of an amended site plan and minor subdivision that does not include the City-
owned parcel.
The amended site plan involves the two vacant parcels between the City's parcel and the
apartments, on which a total of 10 new two-level rental townhome-styled dwellings would be
• constructed, and the Red Oak Apartments, which MSP would still renovate. New hipped-style
roofs and siding would be added to the apartment buildings to match the design of the proposed
townhome units. With the existing 40 apartments, this development would be comprised of 50
dwellings on 2.93 acres for a density of 17.0 dwellings per acre. Each of the townhome units will
have attached single-stall garage and the apartments will have 41 new garages to replace those
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Amended Development Review
Planning Case No. 487-97 and 504-97
September 3, 1997 •
Page 2
currently existing. 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.
Two actions are required for this residential development: a development review and a minor
subdivision. The development review will examine the technical aspects of the plans, such as
setbacks, density, parking, drainage and landscaping. The minor subdivision is required to
combine the two vacant lots, which would be done for tax purposes and to eliminate the interior
lot line between the parcels. While neither action requires a public hearing, staff has notified
residents within 350 feet of the development and those who have already expressed an interest in
the project to foster a greater opportunity for communication between the City, the developer,
and the area residents.
Development Review Analysis:
Dimensional Requirements:
Required Proposed: Met ?
Building Setbacks:
Front (Highway 10): 30 feet 30 feet Yes •
Side (East) 20 feet 30 feet Yes
Rear: 40 feet 48 feet Yes
Parking Lot Setbacks: 5 feet 5 feet Yes
Minimum lot width: 100 feet 200 feet Yes
Minimum lot area:
(2,500 sf per D.U.):
10 New Units 25,000 sf 57,030 sf Yes
50 Total Units 125,000 sf 127,665 sf Yes
Usable Open Space per unit
(625 sf per D.U.):
10 New Units 6,250 sf 20,000 sf Yes
New buildings height: < 45 feet 30 feet Yes
Minimum floor area per D.U.:
Three bedroom units: 870 sf 1,320 sf Yes
Four bedroom units: 920 sf 1,620 sf Yes
Parking requirements:
Uncovered: (1.15 per unit) 58 spaces 58 spaces Yes *
Covered: (1.0 per unit) 50 spaces 51 spaces Yes
*On July 16, 1997, the Planing Commission approved Resolution 513-97, which approved a reduction in the
ratio of surface parking stalls per dwelling unit from 1.5 to 1.15, contingent upon the balance being set aside •
as proof of parking, which could be utilized in the future as needed.
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Amended Development Review
Planning Case No. 487-97 and 504-97
•
September 3, 1997
Page 3
Changes to Approved Site Plan:
The most evident change to the site plan is the elimination of the six-unit building fronting Highway
10 on the City-owned parcel. The driveway that had serviced these units has also been removed.
The on-site management office and recreation center has been relocated to the south end of the 26-
stall garage structure. The locations of the larger play structure and the grill/picnic area have been
moved closer to the dwelling units to accommodate them completely on the subject property. As a
result of the reduction in dwelling units, parking spaces were reduced as well but meet the
requirements of the Code and Resolution 513-97, which approved a variance to the parking ratios
from 1.5 surface stalls to 1.15 surface stalls per dwelling unit.
Drainage and Ponding:
The original drainage plan utilized much of the open area provided in the City-owned lot. Without
the City land, the run-off volume decreases substantially as the site no longer needs to account for
drainage from Eastwood Road. The overall area of this development, including the Red Oak
Apartments, has been reduced from 3.78 acres to 2.93 acres. At the time that this report was
drafted, the revised drainage plans and volume calculations were not available. They are planned to
• be forwarded to Rocky Keehn, the City's engineer, for comment prior to this evening's meeting. A
preliminary discussion with Mr. Keehn however indicated that problems were not anticipated with
the drainage.
Access and Parking:
No changes with regard to access have been made to the site plan. 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
scrvicing Red Oak Apartments will be removed. The proposed driveway would be 28 feet wide as
requested by the Fire Marshal.
The number of parking spaces have been reduced to account for the six fewer dwelling units. Eight
future parking stalls are shown on the plan adjacent to the main entryway along Highway 10. Since
parking can be located within five feet of a property line in residential districts, this location--while
not optimal--is acceptable. There are nine additional future parking stalls on the north side of the
17-unit Red Oak Apartment building. Figuring in the 17 future parking stalls, 75 surface parking
stalls are possible, which meets the criteria of the City Code and Planning Commission Resolution
513-97. There would be 51 garage stalls for the 50 dwelling units. Altogether, 109 parking stalls
would be provided with an additional 17 stalls set aside in proof-of-parking. Including the 17
• future stalls, 126 stalls could be provided.
•
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Amended Development Review
Planning Case No. 487-97 and 504-97 •
September 3, 1997
Page 4
Landscape Plan:
The previous landscape plans submitted by the applicant had been reviewed Rick Wriskey, Mounds
View's City Forester. Mr. Wriskey indicated that the plans are acceptable, but did recommend that
any trees to be preserved 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. The applicant shall provide a revised landscape
plan prior to City Council action on this request that incorporates tree plantings and shrubs adjacent
to the city-owned property to create a screen between the townhomes and whatever use is
developed on the City-owned property. In addition, a note should be added to the site plan that
states"all non-landscaped pervious surface areas to be sodded" No seeded areas will be allowed.
Utilities and Easements:
There are water and sewer lines in both Eastwood Road and Highway 10, therefore utilities are
available to the site. Easements for utilities and drainage would be dedicated to the City via the
minor subdivision process. If the City Engineer recommends that on-site ponding or retention
areas be used to handle drainage run-off, these areas shall also be dedicated to the City as a
perpetual easement to guarantee future drainage is accommodated. The Fire Marshal has •
recommended that a fire hydrant be located somewhere on the property.
Other Site Considerations:
• The chain link fence that had been proposed along Eastwood Road shall be moved to follow
the new property line between the townhomes lot and the City-owned parcel. The applicant
will need to show how this fence will be tied in to the south end of the proposed six-unit
townhome building.
• Consideration should be given to entering into an easement with the neighboring property
(currently the City) to allow for a pedestrian access to Eastwood Road at the northeast
corner of the property similar to what was proposed in the original site plan.
Minor Subdivision Analysis:
Process:
The minor subdivision process, as defined in Section 1201.03 and described in Chapter 1202, is
required in this situation to combine the two vacant parcels south of the existing apartments into
one parcel for tax purposes and to eliminate the interior lot line. Because the two lots are less •
than two acres total, a major subdivision is not needed. To record the minor subdivision with the
County, a Certificate of Survey drafted by registered land surveyor is needed.
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Amended Development Review
Planning Case No. 487-97 and 504-97
4) September 3, 1997
Page 5
Park Dedication Requirements:
Section 1204.02 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that any subdivider of land shall
make a payment to the City for park dedication purposes in an amount set forth by the Code. For
residential developments, the fee is based on gross density, or in other words, dwelling units per
acre. For developments having gross densities in excess of 5 dwelling units per acre, the fee is
and amount equal to ten percent of the fair market value of the land being subdivided. Staff
presumes that an appraisal of the vacant lots was performed for this development and will seek to
gain a copy of this appraisal before your meeting. Staff will require that the appropriate payment
be made prior to action of this request by the City Council.
Easements:
Staff has requested that easements be dedicated for drainage and utility purposes on the combined
lot along the property lines and over any area set aside for ponding or water retention. Ten feet
will be required along the front and rear property lines and five feet for the side property lines.
These easement areas are shown on the Certificate of Survey, with the exception of the ponding
• or retention area, pending the City Engineer's review. These easements shall be executed by
means of a document to be recorded with Ramsey County prior to the Mayor's and the City
Administrator's signatures appearance on the Certificate of Survey.
Changes to Survey:
Staff has requested that the Certificate of Survey be amended prior to City Council action on this
request to reflect the addition of three things. First, the title "Certificate of Survey" shall be
added to the survey. Second, a signature block bearing the names of the Mayor, Duane McCarty,
and City Administrator, Charles Whiting; in addition to the name(s) of the pi operty owners of the
development shall be added to the survey. Last, a block of text shall be added to the survey
which states:
"A separate easement document, Document No. , has been recorded with
Ramsey County on this day of , 1997 which perpetually dedicates those
areas so designated on this certificate for drainage and utility purposes to the City'f
Mounds View. "
Other Issues:
• There are two problems as a result of this minor subdivision that staff recently uncovered. The
26-unit parking garage and attached office and recreation area cross the lot line between the
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Amended Development Review
Planning Case No. 487-97 and 504-97 111September 3, 1997
Page 6
apartments and proposed lot for the townhome dwellings. In addition, because the driveway for
the apartments would be relocated to the townhomes lot, there would need to be a shared-access
driveway easement recorded with the County. Staff will seek legal consultation to determine if
there are any other ramifications of this minor subdivision and to determine what would need to
be done to allow the garages/office/recreation area to straddle the lot line. It may be the case that
such an arrangement is not possible, thereby necessitating a major subdivision to combine the two
vacant parcels with the apartment parcel. Any new information will be presented to the
Commission at its meeting on September 3, 1997. If these problems cannot be resolved prior to
your September 3rd meeting, staff would recommend that the minor subdivision request be tabled
pending further discussion.
Recommendations:
1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 528-97, a
resolution recommending approval of a development review request for MSP Real Estate,
provided the City Engineer has approved the drainage plan, subject to stipulations.
2. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 529-97, a •
resolution recommending approval of a minor subdivision request of MSP Real Estate to
combine the two vacant parcels south of the apartments into one lot, provided staff has
resolved the two issues described above, subject to stipulations.
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\487-97\AMENDED.PC l
•
• MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 528-97
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FOR THE SILVER LAKE COMMONS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED
AT 2637 - 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 ten townhouse-styled dwelling units on the parcels
located at 2637 -2655 Highway 10, property zoned R-3 and R-4, medium and high density
residential, legally described as follows:
LOTS 79 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 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 30 feet Yes
Side(East) 20 feet 30 feet Yes
Rear: 40 feet 48 feet Yes
Parking Lot Setbacks: 5 feet 5 feet Yes
Minimum lot width: 100 feet 200 feet Yes
Minimum lot area:
(2,500 sf per D.U):
10 New Units 25,000 sf 57,030 sf Yes
50 Total Units 125,000 sf 127,665 sf Yes
Usable Open Space per unit
(625 sf per D.U.):
10 New Units 6,250 sf 20,000 sf Yes
New buildings 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: (1.15 per unit) 58 spaces 58 spaces Yes *
• Covered: (1.0 per unit) 50 spaces 51 spaces Yes
*On July 16, 1997, the Planing Commission approved Resolution 513-97, which approved a reduction in
the ratio of surface parking stalls per dwelling unit from 1.5 to 1.15, contingent upon the balance being set
aside as proof of parking,which could be utilized in the future as needed.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 528-97
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
September 3, 1997 .
Page 2
WHEREAS, on July 16, 1997, the Planning Commission in Resolution 514-97
recommended approval of the development review request for the Silver Lake Commons
residential development; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 1997, The Mounds View City Council in Resolution 5144
approved the development review request for the Silver Lake Commons residential
development; and,
WHEREAS, the site plans for the Silver Lake Commons Residential Development have
been amended to exclude the City-owned parcel at 2625 Highway 10 thus necessitating a
reapproval of the development; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the landscape plan as
proposed satisfies the requirements of the Code as amended in the stipulations below; and,
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 stipulations:
1. Prior to action by the City Council on this development review, the applicant
shall:
a. Revise the landscape plan to show a row of tree or shrub plantings along
the property line adjacent to the City-owned property to act as a screen
between the proposed residences and any future use of the City property.
b. Revise the parking layout to show one additional parking space so that the
count of surface parking is 58 spaces with 17 additional spaces set aside as
future parking for a total of 75 possible surface spaces.
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:
• Planning Commission Resolution No. 528-97
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
• September 3, 1997
Page 3
1.15 surface space per dwelling unit
1 garage space per dwelling unit
The property owner is obligated to build up to an additional 17 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. Add a note to the site plan which states, "All non-landscaped pervious
surfaces are to be sodded " No seeded areas are to be allowed.
e. 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.
f. Revise the site plan to show a chain link fence along the property line
• adjacent to the City-owned parcel to be tied into the south end of the six
unit townhouse building.
2. Prior to obtaining any buildingpermits or gradingpermits, 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 cnnstruction 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.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 528-97 •
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
September 3, 1997
Page 4 •
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 3rd day of September, 1997.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Planning Associate
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\487-97\AMENDED.RES
•
•
a.7 CF
COM:1UNTrY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112
• b**"-r".`"04. 612-784-3055
612-784-3462 -FAX
Please Type or Print Informs -Compine Both Sides of This Form
Applicant Infosmatims
Name of Applicant MSP REAL ESTATE.. INC- Telephone 337-5144
Address 311 STiL WE NORTH Fax
114_11565
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401
llama 'try► �)
a Owner a Contract fcr Deed Owoer
Lessee.Operator.Manager
11K Ammo= Purchase
a Otho(explain)
Amami=mdse puede evidence of interest is property zt the time of applieatie ,and"ipso ars not rise owner of the
property,y mast provide a Ismer of permission i oaa the owner giving convent to the Stmt of this appy. The
property owner nom sign this app kation for it to be accepted.
Propsrry Deseriptioe/Prvposni
Address or General Location EASTWOOn ROAD ANT) urrxwAy 1 n
lip*Description Property SEE ATTACHMENT' 2193 7 ,-o lu&5 Alw%.)d .
"oert Identification*(PIN S) Pi Tn RF ASSTaNED
*oft 1.77 TOTAL ACRES
CorrmtZoning 11-4 AND R-3
Present Use Type of Applies:Iaa
acant Ccannehensive Plan Amendment S200
aTunis neatly Dwellingverg 5200/aG min 5200=cc 51000
a Duplex/Two Farmly Dwelling CI Meier Subdivision 3Z50+5250 r
x�c M -(lr cgs X Maar sobdiv $1SO
o
tomstrial Establishment a MD Amendment . :
0
a Other(athlete) a Caoditional Use Permit R-1.R-2 5755;ail others 5200
Both existing mulct-Gamily a VciR-1.11-2S75-1IIatbers.$200
dwelling and vacant i or. a Code Appeal 575
a Develop R,evi earr5te Plea S 100/aq min 5100.mac 5:a04
a Wetland Alteration Permit 550+
a Wetland Beget Permit 7
a Floodplain Permit 5200
a oma
'roe Minsicipai Code far explanation of de la
• Piss=complete the reverse ride of this application.
--
8-19-1997 d:S I At•1 t=POt t t.1SP PEAL ESTATE, IMC. 6 1? 3.36 .LS6S
P.
(38. 1) 9T 2 7.!.11 FAY 412 7• 1 118.7 Ur: OF .4v flea VJr VV.)
Gty of Mounds'View,Mri
Derek)•meat • •licatiou Pa
Prepcty Classitractioe a Absaa= mX Tarr
De=iptiaa cfl';opcsai �vt ljJ01, a Ildj vi a i rin n l �r F
'�T f'1 r«� s V� j.„„.e � r�..�. fl�rr►'1
d
R4 vto,An moy., A%071.;.,1*. 711"i**
SY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION.I HERESY DEa.ARE THAT.TO T' HEST OF MY
IG*tOWLEDG ,THE INFORMATION PROV1DID 6 TR AN ACCURATE.
Signature of Applicant J.i / / / /1 / t,'
Name of Applicant(typed/printed) M"S At7,s gL. E' 'ta !AG-
Signature caroperty Oaner "777 f Le7
Name ofPropettp O (typed/primed) c 4 /J '
•
•
•
FOR OFF=USE ONLY
Daae of Snbmittad S' .5 -'!7
aatft of
?lama*Cis Na Assigned sr."`def-9 7 b0ftiv mit 1 a-'14-17 I20-41v limit
Fees P Aacams I Cie*
Pair:Dofteoricer
5 7L 7
other
' 'HZsono= 8005 0010 8009 8006 x000 auu1 8010
7990 7985 8004 7981 7990 7981 7990 0 7989 7996 Et 7993 7990
;; 7980R 7975 7970 7979 7980 7969 7980 7979 7980 C 7985 7970
7960 7965 79600 7959 7970 7965 7960 _7961 7964
7950 7955 7956 7949 7954 7959 7966 7969 7950 7951 7954
7934 7433 7940 7945 7946 7927 HILLVIEW
7950 7940
7932 7930 7935 7930 7917 PARK
r\ a) ^ ,n4. , a r, : 7901
70 N I N N 17900 7901 7900+ co I co I N 17900 7901 N I N I 7900 P�
HILLVIEW ROAD r
`I I ^ I , I .nk+lhb
tIr c (NicQ78914N I N1 7880 78951 N N I 7890 7a851 N f N 7a64 •m rn 7876 Z7885 ( 7866 7867 11 7870 7869jjj ! 7858
N o 8-2 z`o 7870 N 7877 I 7854 7851 7860 7865 7852 w .
S .4 > 7863 7842 7841 7850 7855 7846 ,
�• • d" 7851 7830 0 7840 7835 7840
3 R-4 til ':—30\• 782. 7815 Iso 7815 7800
7750 ��� `v ,�� 781•( O 7805 I 7780
r • Alti_ 7 I 7809 770 3 7801 I 7760
8-2 1 I 7800 z
o• : I R-4 7801 w 7751 I 7750
111111111
1'6.
.` � 1I I Il` 7767 I 7760 g 7741 I 7740
N 01
IIg ti 761 7750 7731 I 7730
Q3 7801 Red Oak
R— Et: ' 7755 7730 7721 I 7720
Apartments
8-2 7745 7710 7711
114O'
7715 I ca I g m h I v 700
• N N N t�1.
R-2
7692 R4 ,�j�
Land
C'17690 PUD G. -4 .4111,: .
22222
D 2 2 2 2 2553
Q •to X8-3" NNNN M NNNNN 25551
1 w N co
N LO 2549 2
��''1'•• 4 � N 2547 O ,
255'45 i
Q4. 8-3 ,,, /0 8-4 2541 I
N C 2539
2537
.‘inummim
le
OM SILVER VIEW s �,� G
PARK ,:sN CVCriA i!r.
i El N N N~ NW Et
Z to
' 05t
0
p .
Owce tC00 ZI
7550 (7) N. rn " o D a
7542 PF N N NN N•.rn el3 _aNN 7c40 tp�• N
7532 3N N C7 II N r.
m Q INN N
IfN
,
7530 r o.2 Sa ` -°Nr:
rN
li
IIIS,,
%Ig.+ � . 2 2 N
7 a� N R-4
N I I ago 750 N ~/ N N 0 (C3............. ..`c
Zoning Map Planning Cases 487-97 and504-97
Applicant: MSP Real Estate N ‘..
Project: Silver Lake Commons �'
•
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
Aftust 6, 1997
as
AMoututriTiew City Hall
2410 Hiway 10e .:
44....• '1 vvi--- iew, MN 55112
1,,ir '
..::..aa:...
.1:1:.t-r- 4,....e.i.wwww,, .4.•;•:V
-:::k1:1...'..• ,sk:b".1f.2%:::4t.M.k.... $....:IM:ks...k., :::::4.
1. Call to Order N:::... .r.,:w likgratille
'.4441-vgb,
The meeting was called to order by Chair Petersoftes. '.,,... ...,,m., August 6, 1997.
• :,.4 s,,,,,0„:„
.: •-:. '''N.m.,.*.,„
2. Roll Call s'AeOrik
‘k,:::. •,.:.: 4. :
Members present: Chair Peterson; Commagerm5;,ooks, ';.,;.'"Obert, and Stevenson.
j30... s., ....,s. <,...k, ..... •kt;k .
4 ::M.kZ•:1:1MP.M...s.:N .z...,
fria.td.Ws kNs.,.„1
Members absent: Commissioner Brass aemle1 k •%.,,k"$.*****>•"'A*•ik:4 ‘'•: -.Wia•ZakIM.`..**
AP ‘VINtigie
• 4.4r .N
toff
0 s:ei•:' ,:`—'''''k:
Also present: Community Ilttpmen •, ector Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson,
,- 4:.,..,
Mk k xV
City Council Liaison Koo.48!:,* ers, 11F.,:. rder Davalruc.
•*:. •:',4.4,"4:, '"?.'f •4i...M.:MO*M*4.'
4....:::•::. .41. .•?', .'''.. .kM%., ,:s ,P
3. CIttra •z.' eques ,,k, q,G?,liiments .i"''M -1:""iNot on the Agenda
'',.,mm
,s aiptilk:k.N. .
Thdifty***`4,. requests a€ fents considered.
su.Niit:4-zr:•4*,
.,..q."
Index to Mentes '''..:4 :.MMAa . Page
Planning Case No. 4904VM.-(07730 Silver Lake Road/s/finor 1
.4: . . 44k-talgv.
subdivision to two lotsilkirittsting duplex.
Planning Case No. 493-91, 7730 Edgewood Drive, Variance in 4
4111e yard set back kif4hed.
..4%
PiaUmg Case No. 4*"97, 5394 Edgewood Drive, Conditional 6
gA.zn,;cm. . ow
.1k4:0,1eigeamt 9 .4say Care Center.
,..,i,•:,:gW.:*iriTia,,b,-,::,,'*4
Special . je4e4tAa- se No. SP-017-97, Revision to Wetland 8
i,: ;::::..a..g.50.:',
niihigirksinct.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission August 6, 1997 4)
Regular Meeting Page 2
4.
Planning Case No. 490-97
7720-7730 Silver Lake Road 46>�
Applicants: Glenn and Ursula Karlen .:.., 40"
.t.a
Minor subdivision to two lots for existing duplex. `� e"„,`-
The applicants, Glenn and Ursula Karlen, were pry"'
lir 4.4,.:...:‘..z.,,
.< r `x r„ h.k � :.: :''
Planning Associate Ericson gave the Commission: ' f v ers a brief overvc ,ot e
applicant's request as follows: This minor subdivi ` s two lots, one with 6,956
qfrontage " z; ''h a other with 8,734 square
square feet with 35 feet of on Silver Lal<��'$~��.��� ;��;r
feet and 55 feet wide at the street. Both lots arbove 8 t;a. ¢: e. • lot size of 6,250
square feet for zero lot line developments. _.,1,,..are exist';;. `N, �t drainage and utility
easements around the perimeter of the .$ ';b he appli >$`3 propose an additional
five feet of easement in the front and: 'ftp:.: n feet•col) as well as a five foot
utility easement where the utilities• e buried nt>`��: $e 'of the lot.
4,9 lie Planning Associate EricsogitAted thaqie minim4 square footage for total lot area •
required by code is 12,500 Even. ugh thi%. n home was built before the current
regulations covering zerht-line deae,`pment. rere implemented, the property exceeds
the minimum lot areaer. cerement w` p::?. total square feet for both parcels.
Th5appilFants ha. ;i:`' ,ed a Ce.1,:,!';11:.'.:,.\` Survey for the subject property located at
704144,730 S ':;.i '..oad. There would be no physical changes associated with
this"' bdivisioii `.'g}?. allowing for either side to be purchased as an owner-
'iii,iia
Play iii.ehUg A`kitact icson�'old the Commission it is the staffs recommendation that the
° ng 'oze -'.-y$,�z �; ° eso u ion •o. .-a-, . reso u ion recommensin. approv.
F.:4.1;f a minor subdivision t'or Glenn and Ursula Karlen of 7720/7730 Silver Lake Road, with
stipulations. 2}>;
d Planning As Ani o fate Ericson stated that there had been changes made to Resolution No.
>;ENr 2 6-97 aptilecplained the changes as follows:
lipitaiRW
%.4:24tow. No. 2 under the stipulations, page 2, is that the common wall dividing the two
units, it shall conform to all required building and fire code specifications, and that
the City's building inspector inspect the wall prior to City Council action. If it is
deemed that there are code violations the applicant will be responsible for making
all improvements necessary prior to recording the Resolution and the Certificate of •
Survey.
•
• Mounds View Planning Commission August 6, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 3
2. The other change is to add a block of text regarding the easement document and a
signature block to the Certificate of Survey with the signatures for Glennand
Ursula Karlen, the Mayor, and the City Administrator.
a2.`•`kY
Planning Associate Ericson returned the floor to the Commissic#' or LguAions and
comments. `1;,
Commissioner Miller questioned Item 5, part b, the Resolu " •ed the :k> `
applicant if there would be enough room for two," le fami1. omeg` o' f,the rent
,,fig : ....K,,.>.,.::..: ., �,.
dwellings were burned or destroyed. A.` ;`� ..:�...,r......e:<:;
PlanningAssociate Ericson answered bysaying' x lained that a variance
would be required if the existing dwellings were>„,'` a:.R z<i? oyed.
Director Sheldon stated that the intent oft r ' - olution r` . `.,,: •ik,-lungs are burned or
destroyed, and the property is redevelop ` t F :'�.,, amily-in erg"t`•"rent units, the City
wanted to make sure and note that the v"e' µ� have Maintain the minimum lot
widths for single-family homes. S ��'tated t `'• :.��,} `" "'ion might need to made by
• the Resolution stating that if the operty was buriieil �• 's"troyed and redeveloped as
twin homes, then the lot widths ould r. 'Fail that now are in place.
Commissioner Johnsto is ted that m 5b s'.K 'd be clarified to define more clearly the
City'.. intent for dev,r.f.• $:a: t of th-,,e € is burned or destroyed.
D ? . eldo µe {,,.that the wording would be as follows: The individual lots
can velopec s': F w3:.t„family homes unless they are replatted to meet the
,,,
minimum requirements. ;,.. ;
Coin' s oie Ston questioned item 5d and asked if the Resolution was trying to
limit the colorationievelopment.
• r
w`v' Commissioner ert`responded by saying that the intent was to ensure that the color
:`µ``,;Vi was uniform ac:A's the structure.
Aziz ._ 11c mmis .ier Peterson stated that he noticed that the easements for the development
,;;;;;;;;,,,;;, �,. fn one side whereas typically for a twin home the utilities were separate and came
`, t `ti different sides.
Director Sheldon stated that it was her assumption that that is were the utilities are
• currently located.
Mr. Karlen stated that that is were the utilities are currently located.
Mounds View Planning Commission August 6, 1997 io
Regular Meeting Page 4
Director Sheldon suggested to the property owner that some kind of covenant be put in
place that would assure that the twin home on the north side not be cut off from the
utilities that are being provided on the south residence.
.4110
Director Sheldon stated that in consideration of the twin homes: at Laafleach has
developed that party walls were not included in the co.•ditions . .'.` > ion 516-97, but
are being left up to the property owner to prepare f bene 'potential buyers.......,„,„,.....,,,,
„.ar
Director Sheldon asked if there were separate e : rical ai `rn ea• Q its.. ;z=tr
1,4;:,..4.K.0:0?:..-...?.:,.
`Y....Y` •CY2::2vYjr
Mr. Karlen answered by saying, "There are sep :'..7 ncal panels, septi „w ter
shut-offs, separate water meters, everything is sepia ..., as far as party wall
agreements we [Karlens] do have to provide thenr' e in order for them to get
mortgages." :f4-4:4 . ...:*vt. rft
Director Sheldon read the wording for ' %, 16-97, it` x `'to the Commission as
rY.YYYYY. ....YY�Y; ;:K<�
follows: "If both dwelling units are b idu"b`.1i: ;.:.$:::;�; + the individual lots cannot be
redeveloped with detached single-f ly hon : : x„• '•', m• `are replatted to meet the
minimum lot width for sin a-f home She.Y n `YY ted that the two lots could be
put back together and used f6:Yf 3:`'e hous. III
emY; ;�ti <y
Motion/second: Stevenson/Mill b reco fti•v, d appriirr- at of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 516-97, .minor subdi n r Glenn z'' s J.%.:' arlen, 7720/7730 Silver Lake Road, with
kkklaps-
stipulation ' sated. :. :n k {`�`�`` �Y.,?
eRfsktm ,-44 .
;.x .... ..•Y, `v''i' .•` YY fir.
Aµ .Y .. Y�<.. /s - 0
looktp‘k
`Y.YYYY`tYY..Y.YYYYY.YY"`. • .f".Y`Y`•
Motion came ,;Y... Y....,.��:�•„ " .
{...;\,,y:,„1_,,,...'' l .l Alll
iYYty ` y�{y�
Plaiiiing Case No. 49307
74 :Edgewood Drive
Ati
p ant: Annette Jtzmarek
: ; ,in side, "setback for shed.
zii... ...z t''':
The applicant, Annette Katzmarek, was present.
Planning Associate Ericson gave the Commission a brief background on the application. •
He stated that Annette Katzmarek was requesting a variance to locate a 96 square- foot
shed in her side yard against her house at 7730 Edgewood Drive. The applicant is a day
,
. Mounds View Planning Commission August 6, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 5
care provider and feels that locating the shed outside of the fenced-in back yard would be
the best location due to safety and topographical considerations. At the proposed
location, the shed would be partially screened from view by the extension of the garage
area from the house. A site plan with the proposed location of the shed wad> ven to the
Commission Members. ;.;',.. ._v`r
}��x�<
<�C,,� :,zi2xY
Planning Associate Ericson stated that the varianceeing r46 ' ;`because the shed,
will be up against the side of the house. The Code :eginres a sixk l se.• :: ;Y
Alf Planning Associate Ericson stated it was the :r . reco R!.;3 endation thatth ` N,wx
Commission approve Planning Commission Resp. ' � # '- 518-97 allowutgtie
location of a shed within the six-foot setback frori' $a f - in the side yard of 7730
Edgewood Drive, subject to stipulations. :' ;
1.9
Commissioner Brooks asked the applicant tarn the Wf f ' .....- of the shed.
,.max„,�;'' ••x,�xx,�x':a.z"�.��-
,, „
Ms. Katzmarek stated that the shed,.: hitt' * i house tieycles, bicycles, wagons,
and scooters. She stated that the r uested lµ at' d:, ake it easier for the smaller
• children to access their play equinnent: Tshed wot`'a "kit” bought from one of the
local lumber yards. : v" >> - µ
4. oitiW
` ? X x=
Motion/second: Miller/7ohnsto �`teco d' approf Resolution 518-97, approving a
variance to allow for a shed.,, t ti_r'ide yar•i ;:,3,,,,,, •�'Katzmarek, 7730 Edgewood Drive, within
the six-foot ck fro k{ .$,-nce, wi:,1.;f4 F "' ons as stated.
,� ,x,,ti zee,,r.i:t 411. %z.4.
Ayes.. �,�g.::.:> ._; zz ; ays - 1 (Obert)
' » xxxax`' 4wI, :Y
-www
w...
came :x' :_ : x,S. .
40 4, "" ;.ted that he was opposed to the variance because he felt the
:;x asround that the s ""• to be put on needed to much grading, as did the rest of the back
Y
• Yl yard- Thus the slid could be put in a different place. He also cited that ordinances were
^^• v' not meant to be:; ntinually varied.
Plai : ase No. 499-97
5394 Edgewood Drive
Applicant: Children's Home Society
III
Conditional Use Permit for Day Care Center.
Mounds View Planning Commission August 6, 1997 •
Regular Meeting Page 6
The applicant, Children's Home Society, was present.
Director Sheldon told the Commission that the Children's Home Society was proposing
to operate a day care center in the Mounds View Community Center. The. y care center
would provide care for up to 95 children, ages six weeks througK index en, with hours
from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday T. a year _1 When the
program reaches full capacity of 95 children, the nuptof fuius:{smembers will bei
19 people. Staff has received notification from thO:; nnesota !;;:Q`=t' '8•: Y Y:, Human w '
Services that Children's Home Society has appliedor the ne.• ary ¢�,`k`> ' tha,L,Y
agency. ,•. ;'v.m"
•
Director Sheldon stated that it was the staffs ree,..1=;s:`�> ion to adopt Resolution No.
521-97, recommending approval of a conditional.:. ,Children's Home Society
to operate a day care center at 5394 Edgewood=. rive,Y` ,#4i$ }tions.
Commissioner Johnston expressed his".,s?8.••,,; ,: • the chiIlrei ossing Edgewood to
play at the City Hall Park. He wantedx iut' ' rd that;: 'crosswalk and signage be
made a condition of the application approval `,,`rt =;;, _ Y
•„ 'LY"• YYYYYYY�\Y1Y1YYYYYYYYY 1�.
i`LYti` '.:: Iwo' •
Director Sheldon stated that; 'proposa would be sent forward from the Planning
Commission with a conditi t would)say that E .,s r to operation of the day care center
a crosswalk shall be painV.'. d sign•',` install-ff
�X.. ked if t} g^
Cas stated by Sheldon could be used for
�:� ��sioner P:� r V f:i
."`' allo.9. ;A.
Directorhe ' .n agrees ? f,'v`z,, ording could be used as condition No.9.
�ci`Y:\.Y2 �.:4.YYY.�.Y`YY,w ..YkYYYYY:tY
me
.Q, tYY•^Y„22 Y. `Yt,``2Y 2:2:Y<
Commissionerrsaid that she noticed a kitchen in the project plan. She asked
:where the childr€ >, f be served food.
•� �'::aYY� YY`Y�
Jr `k`vYYII:`
. Children's HomS
a•::. Society stated that until the kitchen was completed a caterer would be
hired to bring i ,l a food and the children would eat in the class rooms.
ARNt o"";�YY� irectorAe on stated that if the number of children in the facility ended up being 98
%Y"" ` 04.5 that the playground size requirement would have to be increased to 3,920
'`t „ rt feet. She also stated that under item 2, on page 3 of the Resolution, that there
would be access to a tot lot having at least 40 square feet per child.
Commissioner Miller stated the same be noted with items No. 1 and 2.
,
• Mounds View Planning Commission August 6, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 7
Director Sheldon asked the Commission to approve the wording as follows: "Shall show
a tot lot area of at least 40 square feet per child based on the number of children allowed
by the license issued by the Minnesota Health Department."
w.
dr
The Commissioners agreed that the wording was appropriate. •;s'. ;; '}
Asks
simplifyby MOP:
Director Sheldon added as a stepto the worvil - sI." `•: '$ `:rhe Commission
is finding there is sufficient room to accommodat- et lot whi ;•:4-- �: '.8'�n ;vide 40 ,;
square feet per child up to the maximum number;,>�:•uested b e ap { ":`R; " . that •
actual amount of square footage will be based off;}; - nun-k,%:• of childrei ; ` itittes
Home Society is licensed for. `: X.`.. ,; t :i k2YYbii:'w•••••
The Commissioners agreed with the wording. .:z}y``•.„?iwi;` ,
Commissioner Stevenson requested as part, :=a signage at specific drop-off
ArNpoints be identified for the loading and •w : "!3-•& ,:the child
Motion/second: Stevenson/Miller to recoriend ap14- p e.t- _ i on No. 521-97, for a
40 conditional use permit for Children's How Societo oper0y care center at 5394
Edgewood Drive, with conditions as.;: i ;' ed. ; ` <
Commissioner Stevens 'ked Shv� n to re, - the conditions of approving the
os
Resoljitionwhich s did. P, ".. '' '
, ,i;,?:::..; L" :uA
"iicr, is;%z,`xt :ri •'i�.zixi4x':�zi`.`"t w? .:
Commissioner Peter for approval of the motion.
11.001*, .ss 7'`‘"*"'''s',.
AyesAyes -6 ...'�.t1K r ,:``````,```1 `; YY�.: s - 0
ti= 2= 2:.:4- ..
Motion:; `reed. `2,.* , .
. F
ai
::v:Li:� i4
t:
al Project Ca o. SP-017-97
'}'.. . . o Wetly Zoning District.
c22`.::: .:.µdim$.'\''•'{i,`.".-,.:2 i3.`:�,'`iii.;i
Director Sheldon directed the Commission's attention to the August 1, 1997 Memo that
was issued to all Commissioners at the beginning of the meeting regarding Wetland
• Zoning Districts Section 1010 of the Mounds View Munincipal Codes.
Mounds View Planning Commission August 6, 1997 •
Regular Meeting Page 8
Staff is proposing changes to section 1010 by adding typical, minor construction projects
to the list of activities for which administrative authority is given for issuing permits and
by creating two types of permits: a wetland alteration permit and a wetland buffer permit
to eliminate confusion. ;.=,:v,
Staff is suggesting that building additions and impervious surfs.. `are 1264 square
feet in size or less, and additions to detached garageesso :s and driveways
which do not require a conditional use permit be ad} d to this li 4 ' oj` that Staff
can approve administratively. This would simpli�3he proces r ho €ne s.who: ant
to add porches, decks, patios and room additionrrr : ? IN.Zz%^n ..ri:Fi^z`�`Y
Director Sheldon stated it is the staffs recomme'radopt Resolution No. 520-97,
recommending approval of the revision to the Wet � stnct.
4P* "figiVW,
Commissioner Miller requested that on pa e, item 2, o s sk: •o• `E�sed ordinance, the
number 864 be changed to read 1264 to. ` 1�t,with tli $ e footage as stated in
item 6, page 7. •: ;.r ;rµ: ;�;:r,, ;; .
Director Sheldon stated that the iteria f he w� permits has been reorganized
into four categories instead o2' ; ' Are •
ifffk` IV
av
ar
Commissioner Johnston: wed if the orp of sneers was involved with the wetland
issue that were und- .a`wry' ssion. ' `
\,
DirectorrS,heldo`'r`` ` `� :, the Corp:.o Engineers as well as the DNR had authority
wit ate' r and bu ,.; t etland buffer.
`23vr`2"'�`r2rYa;r..`.` `'i`.�;`,Yrrr2ir2`k,.xt `Yt���.,�.
wo
The Co i l $offer * 'tous proof reading changes that needed to be made to
Ord aatnce No~ .> kThese changes were noted by Director Sheldon.
Moti ` second: Peterscifilp to adopt Resolution No. 520-97, recommending approval of the
reN616n to the Wetland Zoning district, as amended and corrected.
€ r.. r<. Y
Ayes - 6 '' Nays - 0
orat, Aar
9. STAFF REPORTS/INFORMATION ITEMS
Director Sheldon gave the Commission members the results of a survey that was •
conducted with other cities in regards to their leash laws. Five of the cities had leash laws
t
11) Mounds View Planning Commission August 6, 1997 1
Regular Meeting Page 9
for cats. A certain number of communities address dogs only and certain communities
require both cats and dogs to be licensed.
Director Sheldon also handed out the Code interpretation for estate auctio.u>
Development Director Sheldon stated that there mi..,t have beeny nderstanding
between the City and Mr. Ostrander in regards to thy*: , ect r creme at of newly
planted trees; whether it be from the bottom of th Y,•`Otball to t1 Ott.am tree or from;'"
the topof the rootball to the topof the tree. Sh on asked,• Co �r
O n the
opinion on whether or not the Mr. Ostrander of at's Q.,;, '` ube shoulla �;;`"dig
up all of the planted trees because they are too s tztp.
114,
Commissioner Obert stated he was opposed to eY s{, `, A V Y•:dug up.
2.
Commissioner Miller agreed with Obert. ;F� .� •.:�,,
Director Sheldon stated that the Ci �iutd , _:��;' ander. etter telling him that he
needed to mulch and water the tree t'' .h ' • ,nl*,..:„..A*. "'
• Director Sheldon stated that 'Highw '10 DesiTheme has received eight proposals.
Staff is requesting a joint itiittlig bet, n the Pl...awing Commission and the Economic
Development Commissio lelp in.iL:cting t onsultant. The meeting is scheduled
{
for August 13, 1997. ,diolunteers "' `�•B: F��` ght from the Planning Commission.
1 versk 5;:;t ,ks, Stevenson, and Peterson volunteered.
let li ;: .,,
Directo `S reporte of tb Edgewood Drive/Highway 10 intersection. She stated
that ths.; is finis ..,..s:. : signal sequencing information as was requested by
•., 'e usirn e�• ng highway configuration and the present traffic. This
;moaih` „`?�2�` 2ti,3ti\j\
rmation has ,`, y the sequencing fits and formal application is underway with
.<«lihe State. x.:>:,,,,,:.p.
;;, ::ztir•...me
#zz ja i.� -'
.p Director Shelf* told the Commission that at the City Council Meeting held August 4,
w •�"� 1997 the Crscussed entering into an exclusive negotiating agreement with Anthony
= 1� opert',: "rer the property between Edgewood and the wetland as part of the Bel Rae
>k 1$1111111:
Director Sheldon stated that D.W. Jones has submitted their development plan, which is
the second step of the PUD process. The project will be brought before the Planning
Commissioners at the August 20, 1997 meeting. It is the staffs opinion that the project
411 will be ready for discussion but not for approval. .
Mounds View Planning Commission August 6, 1997
•
Regular Meeting Page 10
10. CHAIRPERSON AND PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
There were no reports to consider from the Chair or the Commissioners.
x
Ok
11. ADJOURNMENT TO THE AGENDA SESSION `rk ,x`y
G Chair Peterson adjourned the regular meeting at 9:0me
, attal, h
.x:
(The agenda session was held immediately folloadjournatit of`' ;Y`Y`k�` sessi
4.:.;.;"!"
NWitaker
Respectfully submitted,
David Hix <{ . ><e:z,: . 'w: r „xx<
i .a : x ,,Recorder
x' :::::::,.......;=-4N,:‘,.„,,,,,,,?...,:v.,..*:.....:::::::,
rig`<_ : ; r.
4.10
tiiTv <z � •
, <{ ti”,
• .1 mo.`\,..`,•.
t{#.2..y,Y•{:i` .2••~,.:k. .<iY:{J\` *ysa,`2.2;�,y.L,,,,,,..
{:4 .2`.2:`i �k` ry2.\` .2MY,ti:4:.+<+2`::' :r
<:':WI ?44222, 4 2a `•.Z.M
AS ` .. :.,
442 !"
al
.4;22242;? a,,
? `r :x;4;,3
vt{.v moi{'YzM1 .{:i*•'*
.`y
•
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
September 17, 1997
7:00 P.M.
SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
a. May 21, 1997
b. June 4, 1997
c. June 18, 1997
d. July 18, 1997
e. August 6, 1997
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. 503-97
8419 Spring Lake Road
Consideration of Resolution No. 530-97 Regarding a variance to allow for a 33-
foot wide curb cut, which is 11 feet beyond what is allowed by City Code
Applicant: Steve and Laura Lattrez
6. Planning Case No. 504-97
2637- 2645 Highway 10
Consideration of Resolution No. 529-97 Regarding the Minor Subdivision Request
for Silver Lake Commons to combine two vacant lots into one onto which ten
townhouse-styled dwellings would be constructed
Applicant: MSP Real Estate
7. Staff Reports/Information Items
8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
9. Adjournment to Agenda Session
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
• APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717-4000
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
* * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * ** * ** * * * ** * * * * * * * ** * * * *
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
•
AGENDA MEETING
AGENDA
September 17, 1997
(Immediately Following Special Meeting)
1. Review of Minutes:
a. August 20, 1997
b. September 3, 1997
2. Meeting Adjournment
•
Item 5
. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Meeting Date: September 17, 1997
Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Planning Case No.: 503-97
Request: Variance from Maximum Width for Driveway Curb Cut
Petitioner: Steve&Laura Lattrez
Location: 8419 Spring Lake Road
PIN No. 06-30-23-22-0010
Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential/ Single Family Home
Applicable Regulations: Section 1121.09. Subd. 5: Standards for curb cuts and driveway
openings.
• Section 1125.02. Subd. 2: Criteria for granting variances.
Attachments: Planning Application
Zoning Map
Site Plan
Letter from the Applicant
Planning Commission Resolution No. 530-97
Background:
• •i ••f - • al ow a •riveway cur. cu opening o eet,
eleven feet more than what is allowed by the Code. The contractor--Asphalt Driveway Co.--did
not obtain a permit for the work, which has already been completed. The extra width was desired
for the vehicles owned by the family and to accommodate for the vehicles of day care parents. The
Lattrez's letter supporting their request is attached.
Analysis:
According to Section 1121.09, Subd. 5, driveway curb cuts in single family residential districts are
limited to a 22-foot width. The applicant is requesting an additional eleven feet. The amount of
• street frontage facing Spring Lake Road, the street from which the driveway access is gained, is 85
feet. The driveway is approximately 10 feet from the property to the north.
Lattrez Variance Request
Planning Case No. 503-97
September 17, 1997 •
Page 2
Variance Criteria:
The criteria for granting a variance are stated in Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 of the City Code. There
are seven standards which need to be met in order to justify the Board of Adjustments and Appeal's
granting of a variance. The Codes of this City have been put into place to ensure the orderly
growth and development of the community while simultaneously protecting the health, safety,
general welfare, comfort and repose of the residents. To deviate from these Codes, there must be a
compelling reason to do so. There must be a hardship applicable to the property or situation that
has not been created by the applicant. In other words, a hardship situation is present when the
strict application of the Zoning Code makes reasonable use of the property impractical. Economic
considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship. Each of the criteria are listed below with a
short response in relation to this particular variance request.
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to this property which are out of the
owners control: There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would
prompt the granting of this variance. The Lattrez' driveway prior to the addition was
approximately 22 feet wide at the street. While the applicants are not the cause of the 33-
foot wide driveway, there are no conditions present on the property that would legitimately
warrant such a driveway width. This criterion cannot be met.
2. Literal interpretation of Code would deprive applicants rights commonly enjoyed by others •
in the same district: When permits are issued for the installation of driveways, the plans are
reviewed to ensure that all work performed will conform to the Codes of the City. The
strict application of the Code is consistently and uniformly done without any deviation.
This criterion cannot be met.
3. Special conditions do not result from actions of the applicant: Again, while the applicants
are not the direct cause of the over-wide driveway, it was their desire to have such a
driveway installed. This criterion cannot be met.
4. Granting this variance will not confer onto the applicant a special privilege: Granting of
this variance would confer onto the applicant a special privilege not afforded to others in the
same district. Granting this variance would increase the allowed driveway width at the
street by fifty percent. This criterion cannot be met.
5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. From
staffs perspective, there is no hardship. But because the variance requested amounts to
more than a car-width, any less of a variance probably would not offer the same ease of
access. This criterion can be met.
6. The granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this •
Title or to other property owners in this district. The intent and purpose of the Code with
regard to driveways is clear. Driveways at the curb-cut are limited to 22 feet in width, or in
Lattrez Variance Request
Planning Case No. 503-97
September 17, 1997
41) Page 3
other words, approximately two car widths. The Code allows for wider driveways as they
approach the home or garage up to 35 feet. This criterion cannot be met.
7. This variance will not impair the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, increase
congestion on public streets. endanger public safety. or substantially diminish property
values in the neighborhood. While granting of this variance would not impair the supply of
air and light to the adjacent property owners, the impact to property values or public safety
may not be as clear. It would not be expected that traffic would increase as a result of the
wider-than-allowed driveway curb-cut. This criterion probably can be met.
Five of the seven criterion listed above clearly cannot be met. According to Section 1125.02,
Subdivision 2 of the City Code, a variance may be granted only when all of the seven criteria are
met.
Recommendation:
Approve Planning Commission Resolution 524-97, a resolution denying the variance request of
Steve and Laura Lattrez to allow for a 33-foot wide curb cut, eleven feet more than the maximum
allowed by Code.
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDMADEVCASES1503-97\LATTREZ.VAR
411
yeti
IMIMS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
°t nrWRIT42401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 ip
-,.
6I2-784-3055
.�`-P"`t`�'��Y
612-784-3462 -FAX
Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form
Applicant Information —7 3 —j
Name of Applicant :51E4.J+= A510-) LA - t- -"`'f Z Telephone
Address e41 G p '
YACVS W-2 t_.L� Fax
NY-Lrd3v i-v t,v, ,�.t"i n r\eSc'l 4-
S-C11
4-SC11 Z.
kt--est in Property(chock-vt„opriute box)
Owner of Property
a Contract for Deed Owner
a Lessee,Operator,Manager 1 l Y\ 11
a Agreement toai Purchase
a Other(explain) 04v-1 O-a 3 -Q-01 - 00 1 B
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 rn n` �c-A IIIP
Address or General Location `;'mak" - � loir ace c-.scx-i bpi. as (t4 taws . Ct Q.tl�.
+h-e. Iior*hut e_s r Com(nom• o Sack. `Q-� 321• y �. ey 6 J_
L D tion r)•r 39 q_ s c e_ 0E- 3-t S --rte. } the Q d t n7' F b eej�nr.�.n5.
Legal °� ` � L �qS L erg aux�� c� \I�ne. pa-ta\ke� to - �. (v�-;h'
Prop I carton TN
1'r` ,;c1. ? q &-5 `c_e, of Q.\1 +c -e-4 ,ne_e.. -rK.crti aim G
4 of Acres p -)1.O .a— , . = .c._...- '{'\ Line 0 -c-
Cutrent nmg S t . Io r .31q, • -1-{`2v'- --C- ui e%-i eci y )v'- ' - �t ert d 1%.,(\e, o±i- c '-5
. d iS c - ..-. CA % % Fe`s-a-t- Te 4i,.€ w C.Sr 1;n e' 01' Cwt- 38 3 4i-... c--e, _ 13:3(--.44-‘ dr-
e . a,v..k 0-1- fx ru.� Agra 1 Zf3 .5vbdcv;SO4
�`c�n n� w e S�r �n� cam- l o jr 3� e of Apphca on
Present Use
Uadeve of scant m 5�`-1 CC'a� M:n a Cotnprehensive Plan Amendment S200
a Single Family Dwelling a Rezoning SZ00iac;min$200 max 51000
a Duple:uTwo Family Dwelling " c Major Subdivision 5250:5250 deposit*
a Multi-family Dwellings Minor Subdivision 5150
a BusinessiCommercial Establishment c Planned Unit Development(PUD) 5350
a
Industrial Establishment a PUD Amendment 5150 •
C Other(=plain) a Conditional Use Permit R-I,R-2 7 5;all others 5200
Variance R.-I,R-`Feil others 5200
a Code Appeal S75 •
Develop ReviewiSite Plan S100/ac;min 5100 max 3500
C Wetland Alteration Permit S50+deposit'
e We Jird Huffer Permit 7
C FioodniainPermit 5200
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 Q Abstract _ Torreas
Description of Proposal
BY MY(OUR) SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND ACCURATE.
Signature of Applicant
Name of Applicant(typed/printed)
Signature of Property Owner
Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) J 'z -643D LARec LA- 4 I re_."?
•
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date of Submittal
Date of Acce,rance h=/ q -G 7Assigned to:
Planning Case No. 503— q 60-day Limit ►0 14- ; 120-day limit
Fees Paid_ Account r C:ieck.r ('tJ
/_
Application: 7S-O O J (/
Park Dedication:
Deposits:
Other:
Total:
C'.OFFiC7 WPWZIIWPDOCS1AD;bt NTORMStDEVAPP.FOR
•
•
N P co Co —47D — • - -- • • -- • —NORTH—COUNTY R-2--
a o o 0 4 �rn 49C 8499 / m N
n n n 8493 N N 8490 N 8 9 N n 8494 :495 8494
• 8482 8485 8484 8489 8480 8481 8484 N N N 8490
8477 8480
848• 8479 8470 1 8471 8474 8485 8484 •
8462 8461 8468 8469 8474 8469 8465 8470 - 8475 8474
o O4: 8470 8480 j 8461 8460 8465
•845: 84571 8 8454 8461 8460 8463 8456 8461 84601 1
8451 8456 8464
8454 I. : N :455 8450 8459 8450 8455 8440 8441 O 8455 8454
8444 Millirrd 8449 :440 8445 8444W 8444 8443 8444 p
• 8434 =W 8 0> 8432 8439 8438 8431 Q 8431 8435 •••c8434
8425 ce 8429 � 8432 8424 8425 8434
842. 8421 W 8430 8425 8424
8421 O 8419
I 8412 8411 8418 8423 1.. 8426 5430 8415 8420 8415 8414
8402 8401 8419 8420 8409 8392 8401 8406 8405 8404
8392 8391 8406 8407 84 • 8415 8414 •401 „ N 8384 8390
n '° 8389 8400 8379
8390 8389 8394 8403 - , 8409 8408 ; 81 m 8378 8384
® 8401 8398 8379 8380 8373
8388 \ 8391 8406 .7.12••a • ► • 7a 8370
838• 8391 8388
8380 8385 8387 8382 8381 8378 �` n 836 8365 8372 8360
8374
O m ao 8355 8368 a 8350
Y I 8370 5 8371 8383 8372 8371 8368 0:8369 8360
• 83•: 8371 8368 8351 8346 8355 8354 8345 8384 8345
�-!V 1 83fi0 8360 Y X59 8360 8344 8351 8346 8335 8 4 8331 8330
L. 8347
8350 8355 83 • 8358 8341 8343 8342 8323 8312 8313 8320
< 8335 8334 C1 8334
• 8340 8345 p 8339 8335 8332 8315 8300 8353 8310 C
8330 8335 8336 8325 8330'8 a333 8330 8333 8322 8305 { 8290 8295 1 8290 Cl
83� 8323 8318 8315 8322 p 8321 8325 8300 O 8285 8280 828.7 8280
8310 8315 8311 8308 Y 831 8275 8270 O 8281 8270 U
8300 8303 8312 8297 8298 8301 GROVELAND 8265 8260 8 8280
• 8290 8289 8 8285 PARK
280 8255 8250 8287 8250
8285 •
8281 8250 8261 PF 'a o ,, W 8240 8261 ( _82401
8280 8275 w + N W. In . w 11
- LL.1 g 8265 8270 8265 8230 8241 N N ARDAN N n N n 8230 6255 n •
8270 ^� AVE
8260 6 8255 8248.. _ m i E �� N co 03 ao m a 44 8 go sN n n Fr' 8220 1 1
' 8250 J 8245 I®®®® j N N N N N l N N N N N N N 8211
8206 1 ,8210
- 8240 P 8233 8228 8245 — 8227
8202 'ny ,^n v .•• 820C
t < V Ad!ti 8213
8210 82176196 8205 N N N l N
8201 8203 DR a
y 8191 8192 O N 8208 . Lno m 'No 8175
. 6.'1777 8200 8175 8160 N N �� N N N NiJg146 8165
6:6:„....N22$8` 8180 ^ 8148 pl IAPORT ,�r I 8155 —Id� G„
281171 6160 8161 rn N ^ ° r•Nf N "' 0 25 8142 8145 �y
',03 N N N
8138 co co co N co n 8135 9j
N . Ooliki :CE ?.863 8132 8127 81251 8130 813 s
\N\ 8141 m C4 0
- 2,349 811• en a N co n N of in N rr.
7
• 8131 °� Cll al
N N m - 7, -0 ,2g „ , N N ^ N 812C 12IN
CP 8106 N N C4 N N N N N N N ��
O - . N. 6111 -r M n .►
♦ 810• c P.3•1
Z. .. - •\N.- 8081 N N G m m �4 N N 8080 0: 80811 N n 8086
\ N N
\ •
N N N 6060 8065 8084 8085 8070 8071 8066
•
y N 8040 I I 8075 8060 80D9 8050
8°45
�y 5 1 �\ J.L, B—7 R—O 8030 8045 8036 8045 8040 8039 8042 1
8032
1� 9. \ .1./..,
'r 8020 8025 8026 8025 8028
\ • 8016 8015 p 8025 801Y
EL
N. 8000=8005
80151 8009 8006
Z i 1\i, qi 8005 7990 r'7985 8004 7981 7990 C
I I' I B73I 79801 7975 7970 7979 7980
n 4/O N 79601 7965 7960 O 7959 7970
CU I I 1 of _ n
•
Zoning Map Planning Case 503-97
Applicant: Steve & Laura Lattrez N
Location: 8419 Spring Lake Road
• .
•
1 q97
•
_ -020.1 . (30ILLL
_ __Gt___ adeAlako____J.2y-pcokoolkcjaw
emp
,‘Ikekii- . L64 ,d -itecod
- I .
, ____ IU - c (1k) • J./A_L.A_ iiCi
. i. • : : : _;______Ck (A/1/4.) C Cdotik., aiJ • ct_
e - 1
U410.144) ()Ai- & (jkq4---- (4,0
1
• kiaLel11U (ikj- (ott'LL •
V .. .
‘-1144- --Q1kOd
-. la__LO _VIII-6* f ,
-- L-ki (U co .
• - --'. '.-(12CILIA49 6i)---- - 1"e1 a
/
- -
0 I- --- --- CI-LL01-- Ci L# 4C;t14
-if- L:0-/- 4,cdt49 C
o.- caitsce, c--Kst- I
r ._.cloLLLI,‘A-i-- (-U
cActYtx, ,AA) .4.-e..AL (--ft,
•
: . -: ---4,..... ) , 116_ L-SeicO• ‘:•••÷-Adt4tiz,) CU (.A.,
_.---____„kas_ k_fa . - _,__Rei.
CLC.z_l_L&I-- C,4-•<..A.„—_,,,Atk • I
I
4
i
VOLl•-• ig\_
CO:a4A?r
. -
0 •
Tc iii — - --- • --- _
•
. _.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 530-97 •
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A 33-FOOT DRIVEWAY
CURB CUT AT 8419 SPRING LAKE ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. 503-97
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of
Steve and Laura Lattrez, residing at 8419 Spring Lake Road; and,
WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is legally
described as:
That part of Lot 38 described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of
said Lot 38, thence southerly along the west line of said Lot 38 a distance of 375
feet to the point of beginning, thence easterly along a line parallel to the north line
of said Lot 38 a distance of 211 feet; thence southerly along a line parallel to the
west line of said Lot 38 to the south line of said Lot 38; thence westerly along the
southerly line of said Lot 38 a distance of 211 feet to the west line of said Lot 38;
thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 38 to the point of beginning;
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. Letter from Applicant
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 530-97
WHEREAS, the applicants request the variance to allow for a 33-foot driveway curb cut,
which is eleven feet wider than what is allowed in Section 1121.09, Subd. 5 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the driveway expansion for which the variance has been requested has
already been completed; and,
WHEREAS, Asphalt Driveway Company, the contractor that performed the work, failed
to obtain a building permit prior to the driveway installation; and,
WHEREAS, there are no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that apply to this •
property that would justify the granting of this variance request; and,
Planning Commission Resolution 530-97
Variance Request of Steve&Laura Lattrez
September 17, 1997
Page 2
WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the City Code does not deprive
the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district; and
WHEREAS, the conditions which necessitate the variance request have been caused by
the applicants in that the applicants contracted to have the work accomplished; and
WHEREAS, granting this variance requested will confer on the applicants a special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same
district in that driveway curb cuts are limited to 22 feet in width in single family residential
districts; and,
WHEREAS, the variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title and
to other properties in the same zone in that driveway curb cut would be fifty percent wider than
what is allowed by Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission
acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denies the variance request of Steve and Laura
Lattrez, residing at 8419 Spring Lake Road.
Adopted this 17th day of September, 1997
Jerry Peterson, Chairman
ATTEST
James Ericson,
Acting Community Development Director
(SEAL)
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\503-97\LATTREZ.RES
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Meeting Date: September 17, 1997
Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Planning Case: 504-97
Request: Minor Subdivision
Petitioner: MSP Real Estate, Inc.
Location: 2637 - 2655 Highway 10
PIN Nos. 06-30-23-44-0052
06-30-23-43-0012
Zoning/Land Use: R-3, Medium Density Residential/Vacant Property
Applicable Regulations: Section 1104.01. General zoning provisions
Chapter 1202, Subdivision plats and procedures
Section 1204.02, Subd 4;Park dedication requirements
Attachments: Planning Commission Resolution 529-97
• Planning Application
Zoning Map
Certificate of Survey (Separate Attachment)
Background:
On September 3, 1997, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the development
review request for the Silver Lake Commons residential development to be located on 2637 -
2665 Highway 10. This development includes the renovation of the existing Red Oak
Apartments and the construction of 10 new townhouse-styled dwellings on the vacant parcels
south of apartments. At this meeting, The Planning Commission chose to postpone action on the
minor subdivision request. The minor subdivision is required to combine the two vacant lots,
which would be done for tax purposes and to eliminate the interior lot line between the parcels.
Analysis:
Process:
The minor subdivision process, as defined in Section 1201.03 and described in Chapter 1202, is
required in this situation to combine the two vacant parcels south of the existing apartments into
• one parcel for tax purposes and to eliminate the interior lot line. Because the two lots are less
than two acres total, a major subdivision is not needed. To record the minor subdivision with the
County, a Certificate of Survey drafted by registered land surveyor is needed.
Silver Lake Commons Minor Subdivision Request
Meeting Date: September 17, 1997
Page 2
•
Park Dedication Requirements:
Section 1204.02 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that any subdivider of land shall
either dedicate land or make a payment to the City for park dedication purposes in an amount set
forth by the Code. For residential developments, this fee is based on gross density, or in other
words, dwelling units per acre. For developments having gross densities in excess of 5 dwelling
units per acre, the fee is an amount equal to ten percent of the fair market value of the land being
subdivided. Since an appraisal of the vacant lot has not been accomplished, staff and the applicant
proposes to substitute the actual purchase price for the lots, which is $75,000. Using this figure,
the appropriate park dedication fee would be $7,500. Staff will require that this fee be paid prior
to building permits being obtained for this development.
Easements:
Staff has requested that easements be dedicated for drainage and utility purposes on the combined
lot along the property lines. Ten feet will be required along the front and rear property lines and
five feet for the side property lines, which are shown on the Certificate of Survey. These
easements shall be executed by means of a document to be recorded with Ramsey County prior to
the Mayor's and the City Administrator's signatures on the Certificate of Survey. In addition, a
shared access driveway easement will need to be executed prior to City Council action on this
11111
minor subdivision. Upon approval of this request, the shared access driveway easement shall be
recorded with Ramsey County. This easement will guarantee vehicle access to the apartment
buildings via the access from the townhome parcel.
Changes to Survey:
At the Planning Commission's last meeting on September 3, 1997, staff requested that the
Certificate of Survey be amended to reflect the addition of three things: (1)the title "Certificate
of Survey, "(2) a signature block bearing the names of the Mayor, Duane McCarty, and City
Administrator, Charles Whiting; in addition to the name(s) of the property owners of the
development shall be added to the survey, and (3) a block of text regarding the drainage and
utility easement. This has all been accomplished with the exception of a place for the owners of
the property to sign on the certificate of survey. This will need to be done prior to Council action
of this request.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 529-97, a resolution
recommending approval of a minor subdivision request of MSP Real Estate to combine the two
vacant parcels south of the apartments into one lot, provided staff has resolved the two issues
described above, subject to stipulations.
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\5049TMINOR PC.RPT
• MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 529-97
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION
OF 2637 AND 2645 HIGHWAY 10 FOR MSP REAL ESTATE;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 504-97
WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate, Inc. has requested approval for a minor subdivision to
combine two vacant lots located at 2637 and 2645 Highway 10, property zoned R-3, Medium
Density Residential, legally described as follows:
LOTS 79 AND 80 SPRING LAKE PARKHILL VIEW,
SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 23, RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request for a minor
subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, 1202, and
1204 of the Municipal Code; and
• WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Certificate of Surveyfor h
property; and, the above described
WHEREAS, the applicant has executed a drainage and utility easement document
corresponding to those areas marked as such on the Certificate of Survey; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has drafted a shared-access driveway easement to guarantee
vehicle access to the adjoining apartment buildings over and across said Lots 79 and 80; and,
requiring a cash dedication in lieu of land, as set forth in Section 1204.02, Subdivision 4; and,
WHEREAS, the gross residential density per acre for this site is 7.4 which translates into a
park dedication fee equivalent to ten percent of the fair market value of the land to be subdivided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the minor subdivision request made by MSP Real Estate for Lots 79 and
80 Spring Lake Park Hillview, contingent upon the following:
1. Prior to City Council action on this request, the applicant shall provide the following:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 529-97
September 17, 1997 .
Page 2
a. An executed drainage and utility easement over and across those areas so
noted on the Certificate of Survey.
b. An executed shared access driveway easement over and across that area of
Lots 79 and 80 Spring Lake Park Hillview that serve the adjoining
apartment buildings as shown on the Certificate of Survey.
2. Prior to the signature of the Mayor and City Administrator on the Certificate of
Survey, the applicant shall:
a. Record the drainage and utility easements, the shared access driveway
easement and the pedestrian easement with Ramsey County and provide
proof of such recordation.
b. Provide to the City payment of a park dedication fee equivalent to ten
percent of the fair market value of the vacant lots or by another assessment
means acceptable to the City, as required by Code in Section 1204.02,
Subdivision 4.
3. After the Certificate of Survey has been signed by the appropriate parties and •
completed with the document recordation numbers, the applicant shall record the
City Council resolution of approval with the Certificate of Survey as an attachment
with Ramsey County within sixty(60) days of final adoption, and present proof of
such recording to the City of Mounds View, or this approval shall be null and void.
4. Approval of this Minor Subdivision is contingent upon City Council approval of
Resolution 5154, a resolution approving the development review for Silver Lake
Commons.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff
to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 17th day of September, 1997
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson, Acting Community Development Director
(SEAL) 111
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\50497\MINOR-PC.RES
art Clt
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
mow► 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112
14''"'-i'+at"04. 612-784-3055
612-784-3462 •FAX
Please Type or Print Information-Compisoe Both Sides of Thi,Form
Applicant Information
Name of Applicant MSP REAL ESTATE. INC- Telephcoe 337-5144
Address 311 5T1i AVE NORTH Fax 116-/1565
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401
Interest in Property 7P Y appropriate box)
a Owner a Contact For Deed()wow
a Lessee.Operator.Manager
Ageemeat m Purchase
a Other(explain)
Applies=mast provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and V'you are not the owner of the
property.you mast provide a latter of permission from the owner giving consent to the Stmt at this appDeation. The
property owner mast sign this application for it to be accepted.
Property Description/Proposal
Address orGeneral Location EASTWOOI) ROAT) AND HTaTWAy 10
*eget Description SEE ATTACHMENT'". 4,2Go 3 7 4-O Aceto 5 Iw%.f O •
Pzvoatylde #(PINS) Prx TO RF Accravrn _
#ofActes 1.77 TOTAL ACRES
CutmntZamng R-4 AND 11-3
Present Use Type of Application
NZ
Undeveloped/Vacant
a CmaptebeasivePlan Ammdmau $200
Duplex/Two
Family [1 MajoRemar S g $200/ac min 5200 max 51000
a Major Subdivision S250+S250deposit"
XX Multi-fanu1y Dwellings ' lkeemor Subdivision $150
a Establishment a Plarmed Unit DeVillopmeat(PUD) $350
.. �•.:.t..—;, - PUD Amendment S150
a Other(explain) a Caodizioaal Use Permit R-I.R-2 575;ail others$200
_Both existing multi-family a Variance R-I.R2S75;all otbets5200
dwelling and vacant lot. a Code Appeal S75
0 Develop Review/Site Plan S 100/ac;min SIMI max 3:101;
a We4and Alteration Permit S50+deposit•
a Wetland Buffer Permit 7
a Floodplain Permit S200
a Other
'see Municipal Code for explanation of deposits
Plume complete the reverse ride at this application.
8—i 9-1 g % d A1.T FF.O11 MMP PEAL ESTATE. INC. b I 4585 P.
US• 1')-8T 2:!!44 FAX 412 7$3 J.tt: t.1 L Y OF .lV W.19'44'VVJ
UT of Mounds View,MN
Development Application Pao
•
•
Pmpa j Classification a Abstract i9X Torus
Desaiptionof? o xsati'►!t1SiaL •• • - Y - • _ .and
novz &44b1_1.4 re tin1 tC.
BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON TPS APPLICATION.I IiEREST DECLARE THAT.TO 1r ' BEST OF MY
A
KNOWDG>r THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TR AN
R,ECCURATE. I
giki r�
si�rwa of Applicant _ /Air `t
Nome of Applicant(typedpal) M'511' to
SirQ of Property Owner ?<_
Name offroperty O c dr Ri
•
111
•.e+�wrsrr+rrrr��sanrwyawww.rtw+w.� ►ss.rrs�Mwrr�r..rs�riMrsr.a�.wivw•ii
FOR.OFFIC USE ONLY
Ione of SuZ
Due ofAcceptanceI t vD:
Plumia>3 Cane Na -A 60.49 Unit 10-ZK-97 I20-cue;►Tin it t c�.- a'�-co
Pees Paid Account 0 Cheek/
Appliance= 1 -6"zi • )P5 ce52�6
Pak Delle :
Depasizs 5orq-R7
Othrx:
To :
av wrcutti1wiovcmurt vw v> r Poa 119'1'
8000° 8005 5016 8009 8006 13000 Ouui 8010 "''
7990 7985 8004 7981 7990 CI 7981 7990 on 7989 7996 G 7993 7990
7980 A. 7975 7970 7979 7980 7969 7980 7979 7980 7985 7970
7960 7965 7960 G 7959 7970 7965 7960 _7961 7964
7950 7955 7956 7949 7954 7959 7966 7969 7950 7951 7954
N
7950 7934 7933 7940 7945 7946 7927 1 H I LLVI EW
7935 7930 7917 7s�
7932 7930 PARK
N. o n in os uo h. p 7901
10 NN N 7900 7901 7900 N N N 7900 7901 N N 7900• PF
HILLVIEW ROAD
•
• ` rAc;N S E:::18 7891 iii , 788. 78951 N Ni 7890 N 7885 N 7864
.a
a0o 7876 Z 7885 7866 7867 7870 7869 7858
N �' 8-2,4p � 7870 N 7877 7854 7851 7860 7865 7852 w .
8 til 784 7841 7850 7855 7846 g
1
�� 7863
� AO 7851 7830 7840 7835 7840
3 R-4 til -30� 782. 7815 7790 7815 7800
7750 140
'C' �� 781.( 0O 7805 7780
��`�� 7809 7770 3 7801 7760
• o;
B-2 '7 1 - f 7800 Z
R 4 7801 w 7751 7750
�' - '� Op,
Al 7767 7760+ 7741 7740
R-3 a
a° Existing 01 7761 7750 7731 7730
0° 7801 Red Oak 4 -
• R-2 ct; 8-2 Apartments , 44 7755 7730 7721 7720
773•
2• E 7745 7710 7711 t Fill .
7715 N N N r „,12 '700
. . ::...:___ City-owned R-2
•
7692 RI ,Y.Land ,r, - r.n an to \ ro al r-.to
7690 PUD c IN OO u)22 2553
::. M� �G - to u]rf7 N rn into
us)
rn rl'f
0: 768 r. ��_ t�D8-3.. NNNN tD NNNNN 2551
loi
768 N A' N N 2549 OZ
.11.>. 2547 2545 J
I O 8-3 ,�,°P I0 8-4 2541
N 2539
2537
43
IP
p 3 SILVER VIEW
/fir. '"• 03
PARK
^�N P1 % 824 ;
N -- N Z in rn �
E - I
2 y
7552 �` m z N N
Jk .GyN ^o^ 2'laV
—re 7550 (n 1 O N N N N N of 1. O G.
7542 PF
lewd 75 1 m O!N^ N N N N N 0 MI N •l�/A..
7530 ; N OtO ' 2 i <O-N N to N
7522 --N "foie'+ ► 11t1�� 4 o 2 = N
7 C �► R-4
OI O Nyco Ocm M N—g O t0 tea!
N co allo 750
tp to •D O to O Cp 4�
al
Zoning Map Planning Cases 487-97 and504-97
Applicant: MSP Real Estate N4
Project: Silver Lake Commons
III
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
August 20, 1997 1
,....
MoundsiView City Hall
2410 Highway 10400.40View, MN 55112
....., ...............................,...
..,....,„ •....... ,......................... .....
1. Call to Order
."iiiiomoomogr*
The meeting was called to order by Chair Petersaitatt05 p.m. n"qUilreP"'
2. Roll Call
Members present: Chair Peterson, CommiuiOnets Brasaefilaisdas, Johnston, Miller,
.Aggiliaiiifti,
Obert and Stevenson.
Members absent: None ...... — --------
..::.••:.••:.:.-F
III ......
......
.....
.....
..,..
v....,
......„,
.....„. ....„..............„.....„.
,...............
..............,
,......,.......... _
Also present: Planning Ass94.4.0.-Erics9eSRF Consulting Group, Inc. representative
Patrick Peters, City Council Aiinson IcOpmeiner5.4*ecorder Dave Hix.
3. Citizen Requests anfitetiinments:Ankmgwai on the Agenda
There mwrio citizens requests or comments from the floor.
Index to M...intO*ummini:iiiii.N. Page
Planning Case No 490n!Nigtipnce to Allow Permanent Driveway 1
SurfWwithin Five-Fetaktg yard Setback, 2229 Oakwood Drive.
PlaryOg Case No. 498-01::Wiance to Allow 25-Foot Wide Curb Cut, 3
5213 Brighton Lane.
Planning Case No. 500. 7, Development Review approval for McDonalds 3
babitaurant, 2201 Highway 10. •
tit#.109aggsM0101-97, Preliminary Plat Approval for the Silverview 5
.:ig§t4teilitigatise Planned Unit Development, SE Corner of Highway
ItilVidigiRter Lake Road.
0
Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 1997
Special Meeting Page 2
4.
Planning Case No. 496-97
2229 Oakwood Drive;
Applicant: A.G. Engen
Variance to Allow Permanent Driveway Surface within Five-Foot Side; `a d Setback.
The Applicant,
A.G. Enenwas Presen
t.
Associate Ericson reviewed the August 20, 199 g for Planning Commission
Action in which it was stated that Mr. Engen is requestinga.variance to allow for a
permanent driveway within the five-foot side yardairfi ,s residence located at 2229
Oakwood Drive. The existing asphalt driveway with :it:::of the side yard
property line. The next door neighbor impacted by this reettvaiiimOobmitted a letter
indicating their approval of a cement driy.twaZdak that five t to their property line.
Associate Ericson stated Staff is re•ommend r g`` a'€ fPlanning Commission
Resolution 525-97, a resolution;approving;to variant nest of A.G. Engen to
construct a permanent drivewaysurfacewithin the #. e-foot side yard setback at 2229
Oakwood Drive with stipulations as nGted. Al
Motion/Secopd: Brooks/Bra ae a to app . � 'lution 525-97, "A resolution approving
the varian e `':uest of Aagif:':'. to construct .eimanent driveway surface within the five-
foot side akftgo back at 2 � a wood Drive`Plannin Case N . 496-97"
�?.. ;;t ,... , g o , with stipulations as
n
oted.
Johnstond ht concert #'item No. 2 in the stipulations did not read that a licensed
::::»:;;:::>;:<>:.;....::...:::;:;::::. .:::>::: P
surveyorshoul lned to locate the property line pins.
1VIr. Engen stated statetix:hggia.City Staff person had located the property line pins on an earlier
visit to his home;::::::This being the case, Mr. Engen felt that there was no need for an official
survey.
'' omm,s Titer Brasaemle suggested that sti ulation No. 2 in Resolution
gb P 525-97,
> 'a :''K'`g ase 496-97, be eliminated.
Chair Peterson called for a vote on the motion.
Motion carried: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
i
• Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 1997
Special Meeting
Page 3
Chair Peterson explained to Mr. Engen the Planning Commission approval ofthe
variance did not have to be referred to the City Council for action thus the project could
begin immediately upon acquisition of the appropriate permits.
5.
...,"
Planning Case No. 498-97
5213 Brighton Lane
IMEtiORX, „Air
Applicant: Paul Jacobs
Variance to Allow 25-Foot Wide Curb Cut INNIr
The Applicant, Paul Jacobs, was present. '0
108:34..
Associate Ericson reviewed his August aetpom. to the0tnmission in which it
was stated that Paul Jacobs is request) curb cut opening
wi'erclbj18allik414(:?w7ait'ratveedwthayat the request came
of 25 feet, 3 feet more than what is„oito'l
about as a result of the City's buifiiing inspector. notkg that the work had already been
done without a permit being.„401ed forilr
Aar
Associate Ericson statectik Staff itipm?rnms, ,A, dHigr ggapproval of Planning Commission
Resolution ap*watiltelwariance request of Paul Jacobs to allow for
more than allowed, with stipulations as
tktaliggiNk.
Commissioner Miller ask W Jacobs would have to apply for a building permit as
one ggitif OlitaestipulaNit,
..:Associate ErieSlnigaillvir. Jacobs had already taken care of that process and the permit
„Arwas on hold pending the outcome of the Planning Commission's decision.
........
Motio
n/Second: Stevon/Brasaemle to approve of Resolution 524-97, "A resolution approving
the Faxiance request to for a 25-foot wide curb cut,
32 feet more than the maximum
fyitpiiigaIwlir5213 Brighton Lane, Planning CaseNo. 498-97", with stipulations as
noted
Chair Peterson called for a vote on the motion.
Motion carried: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 1997 •
Special Meeting Page 4
Chair Peterson explained to Mr. Jacobs that approval of the variance meant the he could
complete his project upon receipt of the appropriate building permit, without any action
required by the City Council.
6.
Planning Case N 500-97
o.
2201
Highway 10
Applicant: McDonalds Restaurant
PP >�<x,
Development Review approval for McDonalds Restaura ` ><<'w =:< << <v
P PP ..,,
iiiiiiiiii:> iiii::iiii
tiJ?}rV
The A licant, Ga Meyer for McDonalds.i .resent.
Associate Ericson reviewed his Au 0, I owhich-sated the applicant, Gary
Meyer, is proposing to demolish the:existingIclurant located at 2201
Highway 10 and replace it with s milarly: ed resti t moved approximately 30 feet
.
more toward the center of th 4lot line. The design and appearance of the proposed
building will not differ sigrntly frtinghe existbuilding.
Eric n continued hat acce `` i l`din meets all i
sA g� s :>���' � g City Codes. There is a
a.. , roblena '€a. onal i<.i g` t`the west side of the building. This problem
coulddressed i m wi the parking spots two feet closer to the property line to
allowtot'wider drive
Revis d ns havehavelYeen submitted to the City's Engineer for review along with a
letter of comp a the wetland issues.
: <`The CityForesteidicated that the landscape plan is adequate.
The McDonaldst sign now being used will stay in its current location.
` 'azkin lighting meets all City Codes. There is an issue with wall mounted lighting for
? ldk that will have to be addressed at the •time of construction approval.
tatagiffig plan
The planned parking meets or exceeds City requirements.
The Fire Marshal for Spring Lake Park/Blaine/Mounds View Fire Department, indicated
by memo that he had no concerns.
• Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 1997
Special Meeting Page 5
Associate Ericson stated Staff is recommending approval of Planning Commission
Resolution 527-97, a resolution recommending approval of a development review for
McDonalds Restaurant, located at 2201 Highway 10, subject to stipulations::`::'
Commissioner Stevenson expressed concerns with available p.#10: r buses, RVs and
vehicles towing boats and trailers. Av >'gi i'
Mr. Meyer stated that the site did not lend itself ry well taste speAr e es of Rut%
g
that the Commission had asked about. It was hi pinion:that because elf limitedsight
line to the freeway that most of this type of traftimely from Highway and not the
interstate.
Commissioner Miller expressed concern about the pedalfelttsitwalk located near the
drive-thru area.
Mr. Meyer responded that the first t t r't stalls:are set ande for special grill orders
that have to be hand-delivered to.g"tustonwtiRMANStmployees. He also added
ill that the remaining stalls located: 'the driu �thru atm<zrld probably be used for
employee parking. `i::;<:.
Commissioner Miller asked how 10 the demolition and construction for the new
project would take..: .,_. ;. <" <<,
.vi6"9 .ti}::4::v.14::~ii:: .;:<{i}l,.`,: • M1•::i.v'`•'•
1 ey: told thgSmomon that'tf a construction was schedule for about 65 or 70
da'
Y
Commisstene oks aski5.0fi playland area was planned for the new facility.
:::fir. Meyerstag :t' la land would be installed but there is room in the design to
: p Y g
> > accommodate a fittiatayland addition.
1 on/Second: Miller. ohnston to recommend approval of Resolution No. 5 `17regarding the
d 1opment review:: rthe McDonalds reconstruction project located at 2201 Highway 10.
�`'� 044rson 1
`_''``'' '< # ':Ifiligian .::,_ called for a vote on the motion.
Motion carried: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
0 7.
Planning Case No. 501-97
Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 1997 •
Special Meeting Page 6
SE Corner of Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road
Applicant: Silverview Estates Development Company
Preliminary Plat Approval for the Silverview Estates Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development.
tiff{:
The applicant, Silverview Estates Development Company, walk }:
age
Planner Peters addressed the Commission and r rred to h s`: ugus ,19 7 Memo>''`v
which stated that the plan review is for the development o convenieri = .
station/car wash on the corner of Highway 10 arake Road; 30,00f ' tafe feet of
office space and an 82-unit senior housing building ` lth.,.••
Planner Peters stated that the City was notifies by the'Sfribielk9aper that notice of a
public hearing on the above stated issue was not received.` fi ' iquesting a decision
by the Commission if they want to proceed with the resolution proc9g5tAtt tikopsolutiortiggigi6 August 20, 1997
meeting or if a discussion for the rec906glisalitilk.up any issues that need to be
addressed.
Commissioners Stevenson.ORtrasaei le suggested that the recording secretary be
held over to keep minutesiiitgib discussion of thsittview.
Motion/Secppd: Brasaemleftevison to ttlaig Case 501-97 to the Agenda Session and
ask the re Secret4throgrt and record d scussions of both PlanningCase 501-97 and
Planning` 0: T97. .:;....;: :::. h:.
Ningninai,
Chair V.ftfOOtigsked fof*VgtOn the motion.
Li:'•.'.•4}:<jv?{i;:'�ii:.;t::i•:i;.�L;'; v.
Motion car ied 7 ayes'nays
8.. taff Reports/Inforation Items
MIN& Associate ECson asked the Commission if it would be appropriate to move the Staff
>< eortsfrnation Items to the Agenda Session.
< SCommissioners stated that they would prefer that the Staff Reports/Information
Items be moved to the Agenda Session.
9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners' Reports
•
• Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 1997
Special Meeting Page 7
Chair Peterson reported to the Commission that on August 13, 1997 there was a task
force meeting to narrow down possible concept plans for the Highway 10 Study.
Commissioners Brooks and Miller are both on the task force and a possible:: cision may
be presented to the Commission by next week.
A, :Magee
10. Adjournment
:vii{ti4y4.•+ -!'-i•;�(":'J:..::`yi:
L:f•.Citii:. is::r:�rit<~'}ri::i:::i}}r`v}
v}t� iiw•:iv iii;'.:{;YiC::ti+'v:%.>.lv
There being no further business before the Special Meet*of the Planning Commission. Cloy
Peterson adjourned the meetingat
8.30 p.m.
INNEW
h\iiiti ...a
AGENDA MEETING ,„.
1.
Planning Case No. 501-97, 502-97
SE Corner of Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road::li= :}::.} .;::«;:;<.:,
Applicant: Silverview Estates Developmenti pa :` <'}: ::; `..• .
Discuss PreliminaryPlat and Development> eview ~ir<>>
P
,„,
Planner Peters introduced half as thenterim reacement for Pam Sheldon until a new
Community Development Director cage hired. :r `
Planer Peters reviewed rev*Agis AuguitingwMemo in which it was stated the plan
reviews for the.giatwoipnt of a 40tOice market/gas station/car wash on the corner
c g :::'.,10 aiidlot,.0114e Road `30,000 square feet of office space, and an 82-unit
sen ar hous` •:•. buildirf``'- ti r'€' ,v
PlannerPlannmitgatriOgined t `Commission at an earlier time there had been a scaling
erroi triade}'t to ' i cl that were going to be 83 housing units in the 84,000
square feet builaioNlige current plan the building will have 82 housing units on the
i €'x` 1
tuilding foot prin ,800 square feet. An amendment to the PUD concept plan that
<'`� was approved as` ifMay 27, 1997 will be required to approve the additional square
Aigg footage. The EVD amendment issue has been turned over to the City Attorney to advise
ailk staff on how. 1pf roceed with this process.
EIePeters asked the applicant to review for the Commission colored renderings of
i::i::� PP g
'f < te and a material board which would indicate the types of finish materials to be used
on the proposed project.
. Mr. Black, from Royal Oaks Reality, made the presentation as requested. He told the
Commissioners that there would be 28 one-bedroom apartments and 54 two-bedroom
Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 1997
•
Special Meeting Page 8
apartments, which would give the building a 35/65 percent split from one-bedroom to two
bedroom units.
Mr. Black indicated that the fast-food portion of the convemence<store development has
been dropped. Also, instead of developing a restaurant facility o _ [ , a 25,000
square foot two-story office space is being proposed ',
Chair Peterson referred the Commissioners to thesoriginal gpri langu gigfO:referre fto
a 10,000 square foot restaurant or a 25 000 s u y' oot o� e building.q q ate::£ g.yN
Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court Drive, asked fog lai t. ations on the building locations,
specifically the car wash and the old TJB Homes.,..0.:NOMEgpw Winiecki Insurance.
Planner Peters asked the Commission mem € of they had~' p` rce as to white or
cream colored siding. 100}
The majorityof the Commission a n&wavered " eaan»>?`i ii` ''
MEW
ii4t�•
Planner Peters stated the W ni ki Insurance build€ g, the old TJB Homes site, was not
part of the PUD developmett=v „dor .A11
Planner Peters reviewed trash and recycling Ogg as submitted by the applicant.
Cb r eterson.asked e Cityh govIlealing with trash enclosures.
AsiiidataiiiRson st4t.tatilivre are codes to handle the trash issue.
tegginb, 'WOW
Chair o € d on the tan the parking stalls were all shown as 10'x 18' and the
Cole'requires~getift'<<,,,
><Mr. Black sugge e was the architect's intent to maximize green space as opposed to
AN having more blas top surface. He also stated that the drive aisles were designed at 24' to
accommodate more safe backing up and parking.
<` >< ']canner:>l eters stated a more detailed g
landsca in plan would have to be submitted for
IiiiiP
<`'TI 1
�� � e also stated that a plan for delineation of the wetland from the Rice Creek
t` P.:
:niiiiii*AttPshed District would have to be submitted prior to consideration by the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Miller asked if there was going to be discussions in regards to the 100'
buffer area.
Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 1997
Special Meeting Page 9
Planner Peters stated the issue was addressed in the PUD.
The City's Engineer has requested additional information: Approval of thepreliminary
grading plan, erosion control plan and drainage plan is necessary prior tmpanning
Commission action on the development stage plan.
.4116 411E11116„
Planner Peters stated that a lighting plan indicatiOgghting lo501.1#1.0!as well as
site photometrics must be submitted prior to con0dbration 13**Plettiostotmis§igp
1Mimpter.
*Inimar
Planner Peters stated snow storage areas would have identified on iheRwplan.
Planner Peters stated that prior to any action by,.01.1bMikommission on the
development stage plan that a coordinated signiAgranNOftjan types, location(with
appropriate set backs), materials and text w9:44kfred to be,:§#010 This plan should
also take into account a space reservedOnologotior subsequent planting and gateway
monumentation• .
Ralph Durand stated there wa§i#'30'x angulardoggrnent that will be provided at the
corner.
Planner Peters stated thali4n/DOTetot considering the Winiecki location in their
review of the plat andigittievelop.„*".. i41:!.WMOT's recommendation is that one
access point go tgAtitiall office Row and the access at Wirueclu insurance remain,
and the access fcZqulaglihience store and two-story office building be combined.
Nanitt,k
N:WM:A:Rah
Mr. Wiiiiiitatitated thdfil'atopg*the City would respect his rights as a private property
owner,,ailikakthat his tittirit was to be neighborly. Mr. Winiecki said that he
. .
bought the prow§makits own in and out access already established.
Mr Winiecki added illit he also wants to see as much green space left in between his
••••••• .
building and the new buildings being proposed.
...........
Planner Peters?stated that he was optimistic that the access problems would be addressed
1111111111t9..jhe sanction of all parties.
Peters indicated that the Fire Marshal has reviewed turning radii for firefighting
equipment and there is adequate space for turning movement. Fire hydrant locations have
been reviewed and found to be adequate.
Planner Peters told the Planning Commission that the developer has shown an RV
service site as part of the convenience store development. Staff has indicated that the
Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 1997 .
Special Meeting Page 10
location of such a facility on the site is in opposition to the City's desire to create a
gateway element in this quadrant of the Highway 10/Silver Lake Road intersection.
•
Chuck Durand, on behalf of the developer, stated that an RV sleixii4iiFe ce ite=could be
installed on the site in a low visibility area, possibly next to the t? '�Mr. Durand
said that there is truly a need within the communityis type:;.:`;:.::.e and it his
opinion that it could be provided in good taste. : t"~
qr
Mr. Ruggles told the Commission to his knowl the c? est service site: as astation
::..>.:;•: :t� fl" ;tt\:;:ttt: :`•t":;r
in the Forest Lake area.
>
Commissioner Stevenson stated that there mightone located at the
intersection of 694 and Lexington.
Planner Peters stated that the development ;Aver the r``` ' ed parking space
dimensions and this fact could lead to 1possil ;4buildingiocations that might
accommodate the installation of th V
aservz F ::< s: ' `< '
Commissioner Brasaemle s his corn for tl� 'large RV vehicles being parked in
tt:M1g
the gateway area. He added € concer for the "back water" being stored or dumped in
K:tt'•'•tt, •:r;t.{, ..;tib
areas that also have gasol 'storaget:::: ks in a.nar by location.
As ? e Ericso : h <# a Commiggnitteihe Staff has not researched the issue or done
ag with`' cies in regards to an RV service center being installed in
Mo
vti4 i .ii�
Mr. D. ````" fisted con a ting the City of Bloomington in regards to ordinances that
rel i o the 10 ,,c,enters.
:?v`Chair Peterson red a straw poll of the Commissioners as to their feelings if they
, are for or againstn iv service center and where it should be located on the proposed
site. The result indicated the majority of the Commission are in favor of the service as
€`?>. long as it iso �'of visual range of the gateway area.
101, eters stated the developer has been asked to redesign the back of the two-story
' to`liuilding to give it better visual appeal from all angles of view.
Chair Peterson asked about the developers plans for the trails that are being considered
for the wetland area.
S
• Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 1997
Special Meeting Page 11
Commission Johnston read from the PUD: "At the time of the development stage plan
review the City Council shall obtain a recommendation from Parks and Recreation
Commission and shall determine that the property owner/developer shall bii0a walkway
along part or all of the perimeter of the wetland prior to acting otie dev: opment stage."
AMENK
Mr. Black responded by saying that the trail issue was b ougl t' arlier meeting
with the City. At that time it was recommended there be a c '``?Y' s`'.n in lieu of
land. " v:.}• lr<
iiiy`.'•'• '::Y}::::•,v'vii�tiiitii v:}.:�ti::
Commissioner Stevenson said that the comme . e}"'
r�E : ` �aade so that Park `
Recreation didn't jeopardize the fee percentage for y ;t~for path development. He
added that Parks and Recreation would just as soona e tb owner develop a path and
would prefer that the trails be bike/walking/sidealks. 111116,,
Planner Peters stated that it would talceggCMOvion of alkfAVOroperty owners to do
a loop around the wetland. Short of; evtowalkvya 'along the easement
would be an acceptable option. :>•.»><�.>.r>
P P
1201.0 .
411 Commissioner Miller asked:: : e 60-daytime frame is still intact.
„Ay AP
Planner Peters respondeiy saying< 60-da -: ne period would end September 23,
1997„ >>;:, .>. ;.<.; '.,:.
•��''M1�i\ Cii}{i::?L?i;:�:}yC•`.:
;vi j{wc. .Qj,YlLi :.:,:ii{>.i::::::{<i y
: ` r,son asked as anticipated that any of the trees on the existing site could
d
Mr- B1*00ni w r ."no
• ' • • • • -- : • . - - . -d Gateway Easements, Drainage and
€< <>`CJtility Easementt'of Way and Park Dedication Fees as issues that need to be
addressed beforeny action can be taken on the plan stage development by the Planning
.11111111 Commission.
OMR Air
::'`Chair Peterson asked the owner/developer if theyhad questions or comments.
MINMENIMPF
P any
" Yaurand asked the Commission for its opinion on the project to date.
Chair Peterson stated that it was his opinion that the old TJB building and the small
office building are too close together and he hoped something could be done about that.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 1997
•
Special Meeting Page 12
Commissioner Miller said she was glad that the fast food service was eliminated in the
convenience store. She said she felt there would have been to much congestion.
..„0>
Commissioners Johnston and Brasaemle both stated that the Ace building is a better
option than a restaurant site.
4.ingt`
Commissioners Brasaemle and Obert both stated ttir oppositateilfaWte being Air
developed for another gas station, but commended he deve100fotilaiffibiz:pf the
project.
la:VP
William Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, asked NiiiktiOnip is for Highway 10. Is the
City trying to slow traffic down and make it a botirOviiiihilliki:„
Commissioner Obert stated after Highway104,1edone and opened up that the
traffic will slow down temporarily, but jpitif ftiktiack up to4040,000 vehicles per
day. Obert added that the City wantOlgitfitmakViewAigre of a destination than a
blow-by.
Mr. Winiecki asked how far dawn bey*his property would the deceleration lanes go,
would it go all the way doltilip-Coun*Road 17
Planner Peters said ti knowledge the requiring deceleration lanes, or right-
turair*:„.,s, for thqii:Ofitirik cut. Hidaaisfrat this information would need to be
traaills ...111111111111k
'"?:EIRIMEhk,
There being iiiilWiii*I44cussiciiiiiedifit*ecord the Recording Secretary was dismissed at
1030 Pan
RespeAtiiily submittedgEM
••••••
.......
••••••••
........
.........
ggscoling.sgmtarY
•
1111
• PROCEEDINGS FO THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
Sep„Wilber 3, 1997
>i: ounds iew City Hall
2410 Highway 10,.:AiwView, MN 55112
..4111
1. ll
Ca Tor
O der
ti:.e'v :tv:'}.
;::}yit;.;v��v ;ri\•,v.;... 1:11ti>.iStt'l<ti}•v.•
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson' et at 7:05 p.m., SePieite 3,
1997.
2. Roll Call
Members present: Chairperson Peterson s Pers Bras : e, Brooks, Johnston,
Miller, Obert, and Stevenson. `
Members absent: None }r
411 Aar
Also present: Planning Associate Eric40n, City Council Liaison Koopmeiners, Recorder
Dave Hix.
VREMEv�4i is i>i+:is t`•vtiv'v�:iia
Index to Mi >' :.
... � >, Page
Planning Case .487-97 anti 26627-2655 Highway 10, 2
Development igthe revised`'s to 1�lan for Silver Lake Commons
.
Residential..d m tn..'and Minor'<>Subdivision to combine two vacant
lots intaiSie. onto'w it townhouse-styled dwellings would be constructed.
vr
3.41F' Citizen Request and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
Ell:;William Werner Sr., 2765 Sherwood Road, told the Commissioners that he is a member
Commission, and as such, has been observing how the Planning
INENVommjstion works in comparison with that organization. Mr. Werner said that he was
•
P
mp€ated as to what criteria the Planning Commission uses to cast votes in its
approval/disapproval process of the various actions that come before the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Brooks and Chairperson Peterson answered by stating that the Staff
does research on the issues regarding Code compliance and any other issues that are
r
Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1997 .
Regular Meeting Page 2
pertinent to a given application/request. After this process is done the Planning
Commission is presented with the findings so that it may make a decision based on the
appropriate facts. P
dakCommissioner Miller told Werner that each Commission me < 'book that
miitir is filled
with copies of the City's current Codes and Ordinances.kEach'a t i .request that
comes before the Commission is studied to make that all apliades and >'
Ordinances are considered before a decision is mad.
MN Ar
iiiir
Mr. Werner asked how much the citizens' opinic 'e` nsidered in the d` on making
process. ` ?:.
Commissioner Brasaemle stated that decisions<are midC ?lanning Commission
based on if the particular request/ application is the gu d l at,by the City's Codes
and Ordinances and personal feelings havoi ;out of th $ on making process.
Mr. Werner stated that his perception is that t e C tt is making decisions without .
having all of the facts that might: rtain to.a>given'ri }application. He added, in his
opinion, the City does not have a good overall comprehensive development plan. 111
4.
Planningo. 487-97and004-97 '> �..
2637-2& ::: : :•":: 10 <'<4
Applicant: < >.: :<` Estate«` <: <<<v<'<:�.
Develo mento , > ::the revised site`.an for Silver Lake Commons residential development,
P :.. P
and Minor Subdwi mbine`Novacant lots into one onto which ten townhouse-styled
L:4.
dwellingsould-be'`c
. A.
' The applicant, M :P Real Estate, was present.
Ar
>,Associate Eson gave the Commission a brief background on the case as follows:
NThere are t off actions before the Commission for consideration: (1) the development
c mbine the twovacant lots that
:< d� 2 a Minor Subdivision which is required to 0
( )
'`< tTttmake up the property for the new townhomes. This property development was
proposed under an earlier development plan that was approved and then tabled by the City
Council. The City-owned parcel of property that was to be developed as part of this
project is being considered for other development opportunities.
Ill
Associate Ericson continued by stating the revised development will have 10 townhomes
• Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 3
instead of the originally planned 16. The complete renovation of the Red Oak apartments
is still included in the revised development plan. All dimensional requirements, drainage
and ponding, access and parking, landscaping and easement issues have bee addressed by
the applicant. He added that there are some clarifications that nee .,to be' ade in regards
to the originally planned chain-link fence. Consideration should #i` iven to entering
into an easement with the neighboring property to al >for a pOoltotg.ccess to
Eastwood Road at the northeast corner of the pro ``y. lo « '><�
Associate Ericson addressed the Minor Subdivi ,statins a park de `<44' v<V''ti
requirement will need to be met. He stated the e nrequirements and` : es�to the
7•'1ti�it�
survey would have to have proper documentation ! ues needing to be resolved by
MSP Real Estate: the new Red Oak Apartment ' ''
. a �� tached office and recreation
area cross the lot line between the apartments and'propi kittrthe townhome
dwellings, and the driveway for the apartmegts would need` _ located to the
townhomes lot, and a shared access drivewayent recoi*SjViih the county.
Associate Ericson stated that Sta ...:y :>.:> ,..
'%s`recomeri �a�:toPlanning Commission
approve Resolution 528-97, a resolution remmerikproval of a development review
• :..;:;::...a
request for MSP Real Estate�� vided tl �'City En €#eer has approved the drainage plan,
subject to stipulations. `'''`";�•:<::�
;Altar .„Air
Mir
Associate Ericson state€ hat Staf n:im ding that the PlanningCommission
app esoluti € : , a resof c mmendin approval of a minor subdivision
::.n::.:;:::.•.:• g PP
r !ISP Rat <to combine the two vacant arcels south of the apartments
into ` :.' rovided< lresolved the two issues described above, subject to
p
sti ulaton .. {
Mar
Mi o P nkei € nt oIMSP Real Estate, stated the development review before the
»`Commission is to'a €ve the development review based on the fact that all code and
< ordinances issuesave been met.
............
:.> ne CommissioStevenson asked if there was an income level change based on a reduction
om 16,;ta Tome units to 10, how man of the units will
y be of the subsidized type. He
<'< al < .d'`the applicant to address, for the a public, the approximate rise in the rent that
<'impat t'take place because of the upgrade planned for the Red Oak Apartments.
Mr. Pinkerton stated that the townhomes will rent for$650-$750 with the tenant paying
their own utilities. The apartment rates will go up to $520 for a one-bedroom and $590
111 for two-bedroom apartments. He added that the number of subsidized units is still ten, as
it was in the original development.
Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1997 .
Regular Meeting Page 4
Chairperson Peterson opened the floor to the public for comments and questions.
David Janke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated that the City of Mounds View.: •met and
exceeded all of the State and Federal statistics for the allowable ntber:: rental facilities
for a community of its size. He added that he had taken a perso_ } ey, door-to-door
in some cases, and he has not been able to find an
y.2.1: e "a >:� ,of the project
being proposed by MSP. Mr. Janke asked the Commission to.,i t voice of the:<
communi and vote for den in thea lication 'this roj `'{ _` .
tY Y g PP P .�> �'V• � : ��'•
v.
Jerry Linke, 2319 Knoll Drive, stated that he, toot a; the opinion that tlosamorr
ier "are to
many rental units in the City of Mounds View. H ' at the citizens, through their
taxes, would be subsidizing the property taxes on? ese:r :t `units if they are built. Mr.
Linke stated that the City needs business and not'more res�€dentia::cental units.
Ralph Mathis, 2907 Sherwood lace :.�:� w'i a d
pp ,01.1 i v .is a new'".#enc in Mounds View
and he and his family are very concer `abot t :ber of. e�sidential rental units
within the City and how it will affect'people:.t;tatVa t € ng building private homes in •
Mounds View. : }'' <.:.::.::;:<:.}:.::>:;t:,
•
L.W. Sti ne 7841 Eas
g y, t�: >��toad,�meted that 'has done a signature gathering
campaign and has found €ajkor opposition withi .Pinewood, Irondale, and Silver Lake
Commons to the development that € posed by MSP Real Estate. The overall
••tC�Livii:}moi i>.iY
op.. t in these der.€moor sury tis >more rental units within the Cityof Mounds
VitiAtVi-MOded t ""li `daughter will`have to attend a different school because the
proposed pt ct ism '''inecessary to rezone the school boundaries.
Associate 'reiterates l `the public the fact that theproperty;is zoned multi-family
iiiiiift
re € nt al. `Y' Qsed project is a permitted use within these guidelines.
«>'Mike Coons, 781 twood, stated his opposition to the proposed project and there are
.? already to many apartments within the City of Mounds View. He added that there aren't
SIN
enough service. s it is to justify the high taxes that are paid by residents of the City.
i.!!!!!:;;fan Dela y'8273 Greenwood, stated as a school teacher she is concerned that there will
livingIlliiiiithen} andplaying' so close to the Highway 10 traffic.
g Y
Ken Beneke, 8390 Sunnyside Road, stated that he is a retired school teacher and in his
opinion rental properties are harmful for the community because the transitionary nature
of the residents who occupy the units makes for unstable school and home lives for the
children.
1111
' Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 5
Mr. Werner asked if the staff is recommending approval of this project.
Associate Ericson stated that the staff is recommending approval,of the ri*t because it
meets all of the necessary code and ordinance requirements as setgrth ie R-3 zoning.
He added that it is not the staffs charge to have subjective feelips' t 'into the issue.
JudyHermann, 8273 Eastwood, asked if the roG erty was zo .••.,•..»,;<<<<< ' .G>
p ,�»x`�' u � �� ,could the C��y
go about getting bids on commercial projects fora site. S.10,03ntinct4MMEAV
propertywas specifically rezoned for Mr. Pinke
Chairperson Peterson stated that the current zo ' shtated by the Comprehensive
Plan. Y="'
Richard Hermann, 8273 Eastwood Road :.§ttd that the t y` s to look at some
common sense issues and "how many a € € es the Cittally need?" He added
if rezoning is the only option then
tt=r, •
Commission Obert stated that ti proper owners tiJ fight to develop the property
' as he wants and he has legal: is as tngfioperty Omer.
.to
Chairperson Peterson aged that spzoning`cld not be done.
'•'•24 G{?,`vt+;.G•i.:v2•:.v:�.:::i�:GGvn•
ANN
CQ j i ssioner R46 to stated bribe :iblic that any application/request that comes
City hap mod in which a yes-or-no decision has to be made by the City.
Chairp‘aatterson ac ed that this time period is 60 days and if a decision is not made
within:; d the ipptation.request is automatically passed; this is a State law.
:Associate Erics <s ted hat the MSP project deadline ends October 24, 1997.
Adir NM"
Commissioner Stevenson said he would like to make a motion to table Planning Case
id Nos. 487-97 anit504-97 because of all of the opposition and questions that are being
Alifik raised by thepi'blic.
'iminigChairperson Peterson asked for a second to the motion, there was none.
Motion failed due to a lack of a second.
Motion/second: Brooks/Miller to recommend approval of Planning Commission Resolution 528-
fib97, a resolution recommending approval of a development review for MSP Real Estate, provided
the City Engineer has approved the drainage plan, subject to stipulations, as amended, and
•
Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1997
•
Regular Meeting Page 6
Planning Commission Resolution 529-97, a resolution recommending approval of a minor
subdivision request of MSP Real Estate to combine the two vacant parcels south of the
apartments into one lot, provided staff has resolved the two issues described, subj.*ito
stipulations, as amended.
Ayes - 4 Nays - 3 (Stevenson, Brasaenvki9bert)miiiiimM,
Motion carried.
;•„:APY
Chairperson Peterson opened the floor to the Cftatilrfvoters for comni*Nr:'
NOM
Commissioner Obert stated his opposition is based vattgOsys 2000 Study that
recommends commercial development for the 1-qhwaymongibkand the citizens'
feelings that there are too many rental units..i4Ww.City of 1%.04#Nipw.
Anitai„
:„AMOSSOS.?.*k
Commissioner Stevenson also statcAithe tliONV4y10 color cannot support any
more apartment rental units and the area shovildVaftp.O'Zommercially.
symemor
Commissioner Brasaemle 44*that 114primary cifteCiion is that residential rental units •
.Ammfr „ow
along Highway 10 is not amvpropriatOse of thotoperty. He added that he would like
to see the Comprehensiv4tifin and tigoningegille property amended to change the
property to a commotiat 4pplicatimabude
.411KM Enner
agOink
00#4419.per JONOltigiated that he voted for the project because it meets all of the
reqatkrintaia as 44/$110kr Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning
ComniNskinbarge is Aidbe subjective, but to make decisions based on facts.
Nigir
Coniiiiisioilifemaggreed-With Johnston and added that the developer has the right to
s Nonipmip:vt 06• _„ 2-- % - 6 - • • - v- .1 •
9 9
*Mr
agf Chairperson Peterson agreed with Miller and Johnston and added that the Commission
min does not have the to subjectively make a decision on the project. He added that
MINA Mounds View doesn't need any more high density residential units.
1010Commissioner Brooks stated that the Comprehensive Plan and the Code were met by
%:"iiiiebiSPInd the developer has the right to proceed with the project.
5. Staff Reports/Information Items
Associate Ericson told the Commission that the Silverview Estates PUD is hoping to
• Mounds View Planning Commission September 3, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 7
have all unresolved issues before the Commission at the September 17, 1997 Special
Meeting of the Planning Commission.
6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner Reports
There were no reports from the Chairperson or Commissioners ` < <<`r <";:
7. Adjournment to the Agenda Session.
Chairperson Peterson adjourned the regular meetiggit gr2 p.m. VOW
(The agenda session was held immediately following" jtent of the regular session.)
Respectfully submitted,
$•`.tir{:';`:`v�ski}:ti?i, "igadr
�`.ii2?;•>..�.
vti?�':•:•r� i. tiv v i� Vii•
David Hix
411 Recorder
i2y>r `�y•
}ii M1%ti;:i
>.i
.:. AfeigNik
."1,14.2‘,
Nir
Itniger
Anaggilimmaigir