Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-17-1997 • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION December 17, 1997 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Planning Case No. 509-97 Property Involved: 2560 Highway 10 (Silverview Plaza) Request to have the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, interpret the Zoning Code in reference to a proposed Tobacco Shop in Silver View Plaza. Applicant: Mahmoud Abughweili • 5. Staff Reports/Information Items A. Highway 10 Corridor Design Theme (verbal report) B. Comprehensive Plan Update (materials attached) 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 7. 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 1111 December 17, 1997 (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. October 15, 1997 b. November 5, 1997 c. November 19, 1997 2. Meeting Adjournment • 110 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Subject: Planning Case No. 509-97 Date: Meeting of December 17, 1997 Background: Staff has received a request from Mahmoud M. Abughweili to open a tobacco shop in Silver View Plaza, which is zoned B-2, Limited Business District. Since"tobacco shop" is not listed as one of the permitted uses in this district, staff is seeking guidance from the Planning Commission on a code interpretation whether or not such a use should be allowed. • Discussion: Low intensity, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished are typical of this district. Examples of such uses are finance agencies, health and beauty salons, antique shops, delis, drugstores, etc. While a tobacco business is not specifically listed as a permitted use, staff would contend that it is the type of use that would be appropriate for this zoning district. In fact, some of the listed uses (drugstore, liquor store and convenience grocery) are ones where a person would likely find tobacco products. If the Planning Commission feels the same way, staff would recommend that a tobacco shop be interpreted as a drug store and as such, be allowed in Silver View Plaza, property zoned B-2, Limted Business District. Recommendation: The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, finds that a limited retail use offering to the public tobacco products shall be considered a drug store for the purpose of interpreting the Zoning Code, until such time that the Zoning Code is updated and a specific reference to tobacco shops is added. N:\data\groups\comdev\devcases\509-97\tobacco.pc CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS &APPEALS CODE INTERPRETATION Subject: Tobacco Shops in B-2, Limited Business Districts Code Reference: Section 1113.02, Subd. 2 Date: December 17, 1997 On December 17, 1997, the Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals determined that tobacco shops are considered an allowed use in the B-2, Limited Business District and are to be interpreted as a drug store. A retail business that offers tobacco products to the public is consistent with Section 1113.02, Subd. 2 of the Municipal Code regarding permitted uses in a Limited Business District. Jerry Peterson, Chairman • Board of Adjustments and Appeals ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director RE: Planning Case No. 510-97 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\BOAACODE\TOBACCO.DET • r I I Ar-�-.nom`, -• COMMIJNITy DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION n 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View INN 55112 r y -p2*t"° 612-784-3055 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information 8 til �`'�/ Name of Applicant �/ U�, 0 "' A/ L Telephone 7/7- P792 Address Z S rlC / /,Y /Q Fax /7ei//7 - v 46, wlit/, 5 5II? Interest in Property(check appropriate box) - � r' a Owner of Property 61/h 0 Contract for Deed Owner. -f' Lessee, Operator,Manager a Agreement to Purchase a Other(explain) • Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. fitoperty Description/Proposal Address or General Location Legal Description • Property Identification#(PIN#) of Aces Current Zoning Present Use Type of Application a Undeveloped/Vacant a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 3200 a Single Family Dwelling a Rezoning 5200/ac;min 3200 max$1000 a DuniexiTwo Family Dwelling a Major Subdivision $250 y$250 deposit* a Multi-family Dwellings a Minor Subdivision $150 / G BusinessiCammerciai Establiciinient a Planned Unit Development(PUD) $350 -- Industrial Establishment u— PUD Amendment . • $150 Other(explain) a Conditional Use Pm-mit R-1,R-2 S75;all others$200 a . Variance • '5;all others 5200 Code Appeal a Develop ReviewiSite:r . . :: ac;min$100 max 5500 a Wetland Alteration Permit S50+deposit* a Wetland Blur=Permit ? a Floodplain Permit $200 • a Other *see Municipal Code for explanation of deposits Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View,NEN Development Application Page 2 • Property Classification a Abstract 0 Torrens Description of Proposal • BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I IEREBY 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) • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal / — r{.- q 7 Date of:Acceptance Assigned to: Plinnirigg Case No. c-c, q _ q 60-day Limit 120-day Limit Fees Paid: Account T Check T Application: -7 5 a 0 / 0(7 _1, Park Dedication: ( Deposits: S-7o Other: • Total: C:.OFFC .wP`NWWPDOCSVOMIN FOILMS1DEVAPP.FOR li97 ) • Location Map Nyst, , 4** , ...._ ,.. • . • • , • , 1 t U . — ., TO Moundsview al Square o IX 1.001 Road i x ca (e) ,.., o ..., I View h P era '' ill luta r. . . N, , _ -,,b, o00. . . wi 4- VII4 0 . tk at G 70 ink *se 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet N Planning Case: No. 510-97 Applicant: Mahmoud Abughweili w ,r E Request: Code Interpretation 0 Meetin Date: December 17, 1997 S MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • • RESOLUTION NO. 533-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA ESTABLISHING MEETING AND TIMELINE SUBMISSION DATES FOR 1998 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission will be holding two business meetings per month during 1998 with the exception of Special Meetings; the first being a regular meeting and the second an agenda session;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has requested to review regular business meeting agenda items at their agenda session, a minimum of two weeks prior to the regular business meeting; and WHEREAS, developers, citizens or other interested parties should be advised of deadlines for materials used by staff to prepare a report and used by the Planning Commissioners to decide on a particular development issue; and WHEREAS, a display of meeting dates and submission deadline dates be • established to provide an orderly system for use by the Planning Commission, staff and general public; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View establishes meeting and submission timetable dates setting deadlines for submission of materials for agenda sessions of the Planning Commission and also setting the dates of the regular business meetings and agenda sessions; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Exhibit 1, attached hereto, becomes an integral part of this resolution; BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that if the Planning Commission is required to or desires to hold special meetings, they will do so in accordance with State law, Code requirements and the Bylaws. Adopted this 17th day of December, 1997. ATTEST: Jerry Peterson, Chair (SEAL) • Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Cl) T CO N r co r C ) t!) N C3) CD o ` w N T r N cn r- ql: " 1- -2. CV 0 I- N CJ) CO 0 co T N CV t'') CD T N C OD ill - 0 c N N cT N W® � CTD N O Z :o F.,. .8 1 1- N. N N N co T co Tom. N N 3 ' W c (n o L J as N. D (� Q N- T W N- '� 1'.- ,„ 1i E ♦V Ur N v.) U . T CV N Cl, Q in (NI QNQ) � No a cD1- CVN • ± T- N co T T N 1,_ r N CO II. CO r. ���.N C') TO r~-- «►yi cr.) rte-- :V 00,4 N - tnT , N N � � NO tnTTcv e,.--- gtc9 Occ© F V .., *- *- N 0 , O cn .2 tO ~ co= CDT T N CO N. r- N CO m C..) - r N ai 1- 0EVj SN 6 Q N CTD CVCO 0 >- co CV N. j N Q) CDTN 0 RI MM J ,4:1 �1 CD IT Co 1r!) N D to N CT co O r tf) C� - fe N N CV ..� r r-- z N N CV 14 0 .cr2 0, 1 '1') 10 i 1.y rte-- N COClO N. C„) A V) N. N N CD 1- 'CrN C") c a 0 ti.. rte- �., N t1) T `=`j N N C7) CTD .0 0 •° Ti. o. as ., o bA to N C) CD T Co ICTto V rn N= T T7_7® N r T N O ... , <., .._ =• ® N ® OT e — sc, . . O` ... ca) g. F- = C") OT N N C7) CTD N 0 W to (••3 ON N •s ." CO `' moo Q ik . CO C") U cc to N C7) O to N C) CO w U COZ V .- N N r T N Cr) W T Co in N = N T" co T CO t,C) U., T- CV -3 T N N O - T T Cy Cn C7 CD r N C 7 N Q)' CTD N 0 to T - CD E u- (40) CTD Ml O T Co .r.2 as R - er T OTO Cto I ® 7 t N 8 T e N w O) co 0 - .s i._ 0= T ON N T- N 2 T C° tT N a: d a`�i a 2 Z tf) Cr CI N � N '- N OND -Q-3 T co N 2 O T N Cl Wo 1-- CV N 0 0 Recommended Design Group Task Force • Council Rep -Roger Koopmeiners Commissions: Ron Schmidt, Steve Larson-EDC Bobbie Brooks, Jean Miller-Planning Scott Dentz -Parks Historical Society/Long Time Resident-Don Hodges Lions Representative -Paul Fedor Senior Representative- Silver Lake Pointe Apts(contact association), Silver Lake Woods (Hank Ruggles) Youth-High School Student-contact Jan Quick for referral • Business Representatives Win Insurance- Christine Winneiki Spots Quick Lube - Paster Enterprises(MV Square) - Stephanie Kirshmaier Silver View Plaza- Gina Wesson(Action Press), Carol Johnson (Addie Lane Floral) Rental Housing Representatives Referral from Property Managers Coalition(ask Tim Brennan) Silver Lake Commons Management -Danziezan Properties Family Representative • Marketing Task Force Deb Oman Susan Fisher Development Project Representatives Hotel -John Seibert, Charlie and Dan Hall Silverview Estates - Chuck Durand, Marcel Theater - Wendell Smith County Representative-Dan Solar MnDot Representative - City Staff-Rick Jopke, CD Director Recommended Dates for Workshops January 27, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. February 24, 1998 - 7:00 p.m; N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\SPECPRo]LSP043.97\TASKFORC.LST • Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design • Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ©© FE111 8 December 1997 Cathy Bennett, Economic Development Director City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 RE: Highway 10 Design Theme Scope of Work Dear Ms. Bennett: Before we assemble a formal contract for this work, I thought it would be a good idea to outline a scope of work and propose a schedule for accomplishing the work. We will have to meet to review these items, but this letter will, at least, provide a point of departure for our discussions. You should consider this scope of work as a beginning. It is based on what we understood from the original Request for Proposals, but it can certainly be modified if there are elements that are needed to better meet the city's goals for the project. The scope of work that follows builds from the 0 Approach that we outlined inour proposal. . - Our first step would be to identify what exists...Our focus for this task would be to gather available information and learn all we can about the site and its influences. The sub-tasks would include: .ac. 1.1 Review existing plans for the project area and areas adjacent to the project area. 1.2 Review plans for current or anticipated projects. 1.3 Investigate and record existing conditions and influences within and surrounding the project area, including land use; natural features and landmarks; site and building conditions; viewsheds; land "available" for components of the design theme; and other factors effecting the project area. 1.4 Perfor - '•I e '1 .• • elements, and other factors that enhance or constrain the implementation of a design theme. 1.5 Interview city- staff and others identified by the city to determine quantitative, statistical, regulatory or historical information related to the project area or the implementation of a design theme. 1.6 Participate in a tour of the project area and surrounding community (the tour would be led by city staff and/or representatives of the task force or focus group). Next, HKGi needs to understand what is desired. We are proposing to utilize a workshop process with a defined focus group to facilitate community input. -HKGi would would work city staff to identify the key players fora focus group (which may include representatives of city boards and commissions; key business or property owners; developers of property within or near the project • area; city staff; representatives of other authorities having jurisdiction within the project area, such as MnDOT; interested residents; and others who might be important to task of exploring the qualities of 123 North Third Street,Suite 100,Minneapolis,MN 55401-1659 Ph(612)338-0800 Fx(612)338-6838 Cathy Bennett • 8 December 1997 Page 2 this area). This group would be involved the subsequent evaluation of design theme alternatives. The specific tasks of this portion of the work would include: 2.1 Conduct workshop one with focus group to gain an understanding of the character of Mounds View as perceived by the community, and to identify desired qualities of a design theme for the Highway 10 corridor. The third task is to explore what is possible. Given the conditions that exist in the project area and the desires of the community as defined in the first workshop, HKGi would prepare several alternative concepts for a design theme. Alternatives would be evaluated with the focus group at workshop two, and a preferred (or final) concept would be created. Costs would then be estimated for the various components of the final concept or design theme. Tasks specific to this stage of the work include: 3.1 Prepare a minimum of two alternatives for the Highway 10 design theme, exploring patterns, materials and details for landscaping, lighting, signage, fencing, street furniture, color and other components of a design theme; treatment of gateways and major intersection within the project area would be considered in each alternative. 3.2 Conduct workshop two with the focus group to evaluate the alternatives and define a direction for a final design theme. 3.3 Prepare a final concept for the design theme incorporating input received at workshop two. 3.4 Prepare preliminary cost estimates based on the final design theme. IIIHKGi will define the next steps to conclude the effort of creating a design theme. We feel it will be important to leave the city with an outline for implementation of the final design, as well as a brief report describing the process and results. HKGi will present the design theme to the community, and then conclude the process with presentations to city boards and commissions. Tasks related to this phase of the work include: 4.1 Create a plan for implementation (working with city staff), including identification of priority enhancements; definition of funding opportunities; development of an implementation timeline; description of the next level of design and/or subsequent reviews required to maintain consistency with the accepted design theme; and definition of implementation responsibility. 4.2 Present the design theme to the community (the presentation "venue" will be determined by the city). 4.3 Prepare summary report. 4.4 Present the design theme to city boards and commissions. We need to establish the appropriate city boards and commissions for review, but I would hope that representatives would participate in the focus group. This would help them gain an early understanding of directions that might be established, and it will provide us with some level of insight into the issues being addressed by local decision makers. The deliverables that result from the scope of work outlined above would include: . • an analysis of the existing conditions and influences of the project area Cathy Bennett • 8 December 1997 Page 3 • a visual evaluation of the project area • a minimum of two concept level alternatives for a design theme • a final concept for a design theme • a cost estimate for the components of the design theme • an implementation plan • summary report including all items listed above and summaries and/or highlights of meetings, workshops and interviews We would like to the city to provide the following: • aerial photographs of project area • digital information • zoning and land use maps • plans for current or anticipated projects in and surrounding the project area Aspects of the schedule for this project need to be defined as well. It would seem appropriate to begin the focus group process in about mid-January. This will provide us with time to gather and review some of the information that already exists and will allow us to tour the area. Completion of the work can likely be accomplished by mid-March. An exact schedule can be defined when we meet. • „. should meet to review the contents of this letter and to agree on a scope of work that can be incorporated into a contract. Please call me if you have any questions before then. Sincerely, Hoisington Ko-: er G+up Inc. Michael Schroeder U w 1 • 8 z I- 0 0 H a. w Cn 0 m J w z m >- <Q 2 c 0.. Q • r Q 2 m w U- -- z Q 0 w 0 w 2 w W w Z U) D F- O W w g Z Z I=uj < co i= 2 Z W Z z Z cUn a a_ a wo 2gz � F.W.. I— Z0 zz U F_ OzwO � Z _, a m 0 aa.. < Zga 0) 5 §" - SOU a. Q w 2Z wwcnCG a.g _1Z zaaQJOZ2UD 5 ~ o. o Dj • ✓ E= ( a+ 1J! re { N h"O •"t .c € c 3 C i E m c _ c`6 LI- R' F= E- c 0c c 3 a) Eb o) co a Ot' O O 1 O O O {) iO gxe ( o O + lO - O La Q In ti O O I, 69- !- ,Y i O Vi CO 1 E A €C : < E as 3 a a)€ C C Z 1c6 ,O ITC :� S C +. .. p p j� '0 C f0 f0 N (6 (N !L C U 9 p� '? � �. 7s3 7 7U) U) U) E Q A"' :' c E € Cci) 3` - ' •- '+ c Q c c ..'xe�Z. Z. H c6O 0 � U 0 U 00 iU � U it >' '` , ? W i • d �•': CO CO i '.._C .r .0 -C .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 w ." C r 0 Yc C z€C � C E:.-� C C ' C C ' I C C C O O II o €' o O o O O O 30 OI O O O E ? :.. W t E E E E E E E E ,€f, E E E 2 r i.= Yi r 'a- ' M co .M co EM co co co N r ,r E 3i 3 x..F..i s._...a ' a I '4 $ -p a c c LE Vel 0C as E N 4- ilL o 4 ,' c6 2 N cn o p c V Ey O `; (6 Z E 0 c oc > CTS w C U) �' � a) $ C a c 3, , = N �€ o v 'i- rn .- p c 'N c6 co N c6 c o $ '13 13 'C c V f6 O U 7 7 0 3. a a al E' U c c- a3 7 C O aa) 1'13 a rn L a) C -0a i C a c c6 a v CO rn� c nrnC O co �' 3t � ° as c oc 3 ca) cn E .� c c c Cl) i f6 a) :r 'm co rn ".r O o j=. i ca N a) C a) c6 a o W j o N 17- "-: .:,, c 7 C .4. C _co p).N C O'O Y Y O) t a , C :' H d c I o o p2 -Ev 3 c axi a) ca L co a . o c0 o o ca. w e c6 'N a) '0 o c6 ca co 0 as .. 0 c E w >• �, co c v o o > O "r a) E o0 c :0 . jjai a a_ o £z O 0>. E - a) a C vo c6 oc `G. cc6 ? c -0 c C ° .o t co E .6 3 a) '5 2 1 M ` m u) a °� ' o a SRe c6macn < Eo _°' o a) w Z ° i p co E s -' c E 0- as II 13 EYU o -c 6) >� r c c c6 , co E N Via) A.. €Z m 2 0.4,-,,, z, E 0 n E) 9 •a D o m 3 -0 Em•0 ro a V m a t a) � � c c tea) s ° € ° rn was •w m0 Ili toi c�` 3a) a) � o rn w p E N cm CL a v m o .c f°• c€ m -c E E o ; c o ca..— o o a� 't o` rnQa � �€ o III • _ "•., ! s E `�'p f C p c -- c6 (6 t. L p ;i+ �. O S.2 €' = O O L N ‘.- i\-1 p c € a N E ( O 3 c N a C Clla a) c6 a) a) c o 0 o c a) Q) a) a) a fi 2 h N 0. a c j m o r aU co ° a Qa fl g U 5 p E _co a, a 0 p a a co a m W a) ' a) E & A: O I = a) L a) _ _ > a) _ _ > a 2 3 I a) _ �f d z N Ce 4- gU) ■ c U c d Q tm U 0 W u C9 ix d 4 • W { U) E,, LLTd i{ .E{ v L 'A 0 .. p z `w i 0 F 0 L G ¢ t . OO (77} ; • E It I dps3- c a) O s • o , LL 0 (n (/) U (n E (n 0 U) U) P U W IU U U U U� • ' » � € 5 tg jE E 3 u.i Q € `� '., co co ` U) co , , co COto ; L a L sd '-S. .0 i.0 .0 ['1 .0 � ¢ ' I,v. o, z Oc0 0 0 O O c c w 2 E" E E 2 1 ` E E ES z co M coo co co co l a ~ .€ ,I , s to c C t _ a E ..+ C.) [ o as X , ii G T al c N Y� > E' E E tp � co c Q U id p NF C � a) o a/ p E N N c i j c +. r•, � ) •-• e U � E ca � t,� N 3 Ii € r te Q € a c�V e c N ; e Q C > c c w '� -.- to J o f : �+ a U O Q' m U ( c c Q a°- �N E O a) TD W o cm c 03E € Q oE� >, � O •p a 2E . 1 .I p p p ..- U c c Z ay) m 3,, � a c _ u) � 0•_ s _ aa) c cv o . > E aa)) o ° ? > W o °•amv°)ioa) k,..€ . Ca-' oQ (7) >,17).. ar a) 2 � > E :° , hIIIllT T � e c Q ) ca III! J mw- cc4p • CN >• E 0f6 T N > a) t p �, •cto O o a c0 '0 = � r_ +_. >, cQa) L � � Q� �� ! d � > � � U 1.: � } � E a) (6 Z1. :as mNoo maa . .— .— . > '> '> a a •— •— •— •— a •- •- a - . UiiLLn`_ I o. maCe ' a) .:o vYi Q dmf 'c5 �, �W � omc.ij a Q Q as € a i 'a 0 2 0 f— €, .r•-: rn E U 4 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting October 15, 1997 Mounds iiiiiiii City Hall 2410 Highway 10, MOunds:?.::.Viw, MN 55112 ....:.. I HIP 1. Call to Order aiirf 11111111111116,,AIS The meeting was called to order by Chair Peters at 7:02 p m. 2. Roll Call ..NOMEgit1/4 „Or Members present: Chair Peterson; Commissioners BraAftkilittagks, Johnston, and Miller. .0„:01.1111k. Members absent: Commissioners Stevenson and excused absences. Also present: Community Development D.pctor JcIlimranning Associate Ericson; • Council Liaison KoopmeineKgikiii Recorder Dave 1-1*. ..„.. 3. Approval of Minutes figiamigq" ...", aASMIgust b September , 19 '7 ymank, ChairthaWggiftson recit:400Xhiotion to approve the minutes. Motion/std Mirefailaaelpje to approve the August 20,1997(Special) and September 3, es it aa •a aa• e 1:7 ......, Ayes - 5 AI. * Nays - 0 ........ K00:1 carried. -4. IntrektdAtinutes Page Planning Case No. 505-97, Consideration of Resolution No. 531-97 regarding 2 a Major Subdivision Combining four parcels into one for the proposed Building N Development, Mounds View Business Park East Second Addition, vocc Program Avenue. • Mounds View Planning Commission October 15, 1997 111 Special meeting Page 2 4. Citizen Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda No citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda were consider> .11•.11 • AM 5. Planning Case No. 505-97 A.N: xxxx Program Avenue `€x } `> ' •`.iii::N.M1ti •.{:...wi..y;. Applicant: Everest Group, Ltd. '• <::ir;s•::<;;�>::..,a>:,Y Consideration of Resolution No. 531-97 Regarding a 1Vta .livisi >tiv• on Combiniri �rParcels into One for the Proposed Building N Development, Mo:F ;>Business Park East Second Addition. v' Thea applicant, Everest Group, Ltd. was absen : '` ``':`!hig `• tin . PP p, t:.��:a .� �:: �:e g Associate Ericson gave the Comm ssion a b. ixf`bi ek.r eport on the Planning Case as follows: He told the Commission that the onginit < an was approved by the City on October 24, 1994. At thane the p .t was not= ed with Ramsey County within the • time frame allowed. Because fthis for the site plan needs to be reviewed again by the Planning Commission and reapprovedthe CktCouncil. • As c a e Ericsa to an o : <P1997 PlanningCommission meetingwhere easementlvacation �� >..dedication,the possibility of additional right of waywould g be riOgdWitg..park dediatimfgg and the reapproval of the Development review were di cu Assiate Erif ::the Commission that these items have been addressed and the 40- ;owner and the Chi:_" dome to terms on the above imssues. It is Staffs recommendation :«:':'that the Planning ► ission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 531-97, recommending approval of the major subdivision request of Everest Group, Ltd., for the Mounds View siness Park East 2nd Addition plan, with stipulations. <``<'<>Commisstoner Miller asked if the buildingfootprint is the same square footage as was on P q g gi'ial plan. . Associate Ericson confirmed that it was, adding that the new development shows six fewer parking spaces. He continued stating the decrease in parking spaces may be due to increased drainage or runoff necessities. . . Mounds View Planning Commission October 15, 1997 Special meeting Page 3 Commissioner Johnston told the Commissioners that upon readingthe October 1994 P meeting minutes that refers to this project, he noticed that the Planning Commission at that time made note that the driveway entrance on the south side of the deNepment site was to close to the adjacent curve. As a condition of approval, Everest, ioup, Ltd., at that time had agreed to move the driveway opening farther to tp `'' Associate Ericson stated that a full development resew would:: ># `any changes ` the plan that had been agreed to previously weremade. `'`` .,607 IONSBNI]..beir Chair Peterson said it was his feeling that the P 'N` ommission shoul`l' ; v the plan at which time it might be possible to do and a .reapproval process; review the plan and approve it at the same meeting. €<€k >=. Associate Ericson told the Commission that:::t: as his inteino € ;the plan to the City Council only if the Planning Commission ` 'do a full t t,rprocess. Chair Peterson stated that there was no approval o pl that was in effect at the present time. > • Associate Ericson told the< ii vmissic That the r blution approving the development review was not contingent pon build t within; y set period of time. CQ :ssioner Mired her ctijt the language in Resolution 531-97 did not **wokte the intern 'i e;Resolutionin its title. Chair Pete?igon su este g the word "property" to "properties" at the first ::.:::::.gg :.>:.:.>:.::.: ::g senten , "': with Whi in the resolution. ommi si i nen'::: :' 8 1- . • s '. - • -- 1- ', '•, • 6- . • • " • •. - »< nto one" in the title ttgrAttlie resolution. Associate Ericson said that he would add the words "to be legally described as lot 1, block 1 of Mods View Business Park East 2nd Addition," into the last Whereas `'' t' l"paragrap; `page 1 of Resolution 531-97. ' ` ' ommissi e` oners agreed unanimously. Motion/second: Brasaemle/Johnston moved to recommend approval of Resolution No. 531-97, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Final Plat for Mounds View Business Park East 2nd • Addition; Planning Case 505-97, as amended. Mounds View Planning Commission October 15, 1997 • Special meeting Page 4 Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. ti: y; MALAY 6. Staff Reports/Information Items '' } Associate Ericson referred to the City's code book and a printout fra : ,e book that was distributed to all of the Commission mcitOfFs at.tstart of the' ":.•<•`'-• - . < meeting. This code printout made reference to g • •: ations and surfacwa s discussed at the October 1, 1997 Regular Planningi€ on meeting. Continuing Ericson stated that when the code book was print *had been made and Subdivision 7 had been incorrectly printed within Subdivtigg <The Commissioners were told that the version of the code before the Cission this thitiONOSO how the code is supposed to look and how it will look w : mmission i sted an up-dated version of the code. Associate Ericson introduced Risk JopketlIfie new unity Development Director for }>:: • the City of Mounds View. .< e� address •M1 Director Jopket�e Co `�i ei mr.�ion statgvthat the Comprehensive Plan would be one ctf the future pr}cttxiat will 1 .ch attention. He added that there would be:::a munity i e .be heldi < newood School to discuss the Ring Road pre t t will be to the community by the University of Minnesota's ♦..:'fi.X�:� :;•:tet.::C.::: �' o;:vi:'i::' '<:uii•.. � Desi r for the'c€ uh y's reaction. Associatekri €wadded thattere will be a neighborhood meeting held at 6:30 p:in,October' at the City's council chambers by Towle Development. This ;:meeting is beingat Towle can discuss with the community its plans for the City _ 'property on Highw €'as well as the four residential lots on Eastwood. AME Commissionerohnston asked if the Ring Road Project had gotten to the point of funding. " e'Ericson said that TIF dollars would most likely be involved. He added that T has approved the signaling at the proposed intersection. Director Jopke added that the intersection signal location, to a certain extent, is defined by what happens with the O'Neal/Anthony Properties proposal. He stated that the City is . trying to maintain maximum flexibility so that all options for this project can be looked at. 4110 Mounds View Planning Commission October 15, 1997 Special meeting Page 5 Associate Ericson told the Commissioners that the developers of Silver View Estates would be back before the Commission on November 19, 1997. MNDOT has given the developer approval for their access points. He added that a letter.requesti# extension of the process would have to be written to the developer. ;` i' Commissioner Miller asked if Wineke's access pros had' t :ved. lir Associate Ericson told the Commission that MIN OT has allowed the outh,of Winekes to have its own access on to Highway 1r,He added that Mr.j ` ti'not allow access through his property. . .xv�`�.. ' '�" 2Iiiiiiii2i< .ti{' 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner's Re r€ <> n `'::t. 1r .iiiiiiiiiink,„ No reports were considered from the ChairminLor the Ct € ;loners. 8. AdjournmenttoA andaSession • Chairperson Peterson adjourned; special eetin `p.m. (The agenda session was 4#10iiiimediggy followi, :adjournment of the special session.) Res ectfull :submitted, <E David d E Hix�� Recorder .. • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 5, 1997 Mounds y0w City Hall 2410 Highway 10, Al.44.nds.Yreiv , MN 55112 S. S+SSSSSS4t SS faigh..Air ........................ 1. Call to Order MISOmm,,,, .:4tee IBRIFINSfe The meeting was called to order by Chair Peters:46k 7:5Ale.m. Ni.AVER:r. 10.11NY Nekr''• Agolnik 2. Roll Call Members present: Commissioners Brasaemle, Afooks, Y0*::Vbert, Stevenson and Peterson. .,:,.:onommigma, Members absent: Commissioner Miller(excused) Also present: Community Deve1f5ment140ctor JOkkgranning Associate Ericson; • Council Liaison KoopmeineKtlid Recorder DaveOX •• •••••••••• ........... ........... ....... .......... ......, .......... 3. Approval of Minutes ANWAgg a.....Aglaeptembe040007. 611111%pberFIT7alk. Motion/SecontiRgit4tAle/Ste .M.R.:. .601kApprove the meeting minutes from September 17, 1997 (Special), ang,L.KatighiS997 (R660') as submitted. Ayes - 6112SEP Nays - 0 tgiNW MOttpn carried. 44Mia:. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Kathleen Burding, 5085 Sunnyside Road addressed the Commission in regards to having ',:quamafking ordinance changed. She stated that parking for her residential neighborhood is restricted from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Ms. Burding presented the Commission with a signed petition from her neighbors asking • that the parking restrictions be lifted. She added that the parking has nothing to do with overflow from the school that is near her neighborhood. Mounds View Planning Commission November 5, 1997 • Regular Meeting Page 2 Ms. Burding continued stating that the history of the parking ban was such that twenty years ago parking was a problem because not all of the properties had driveways for off- street parking. Currently all properties have ample driveway spatfor th., own vehicles. Ms. Burding, told the Commission that what she and her neig asking for is that. parking be allowed on the street during the day, the same e:.;t'•a� ..,;:r. �� ��'•� c #: "�:�z'snow :: : considerations that the rest of the City has. si ' }M1 }f �i}iµA� `ii4ti'LV}v�• Chair Peterson asked Ms. Burding if she had spokenanyone from the City out the request and if not, the best approach would be to' i to City staff to get the issue placed on the City Council agenda and deal direct the Ci y Council on the problem. Associate Ericson recommended that Ms. Bu ng go to hz ing, the City Administrator, and that he could help Ms :;i:.ing� g' et the prowC . :is ioving in the right direction. No other request or comments were considered fro€ <'t : itzens. Adir • 5. Staff Reports/Information Items a. City Council:Acti , 10/27/ 1 cb <:' eport by Jim Ericson) <r':?k:air:;?>.:Y:t ::::k:::2;�::::2.: •':r`. Aii tit�• i 'Ericsoni€ .two actions of relevance to the Planning Commission. The firstnrstimprogb4 wetland wettanovtoralmn permit and easement vacation requested by Good Value Homeg,f0twolgts on Ffii :Circle. The City Council looked at the plans and had questions „ i `:>the ease was dedicated in the first place. City Attorney Bob Lon was direii# o sesearch`why the easement is there and will report to the City. The s_:;:"`. • i ue re ' `` '> veres "roup maj. sup Divi i•n, wf'c e "ounci passes. resubdivision€ `i r the Mounds View Business Park East 2nd Addition, Akit b City Council Worksession, 11/3/97 (Verbal Report by Rick Jopke) i iiii> arector 011ke addressed the Commissioners and reviewed a list of agenda items that had 1•1111`'`iiiii'tb: d:#missed at the City Council worksession on 11/3/97. The items addressed included >si: <a:gtreral discussion with Representative Evans; a presentation of an engineering study concerning the current City Hall, with the different options available to correct problems; and the Ring Road development. • • Mounds View Planning Commission RegularNovember 5, 1997 Meeting Page 3 c. Summary of the Ring Road Community Meeting, 10/28/97 Director Jopke addressed the Commissioners regarding the commuinty meeting held at Pinewood Elementary School, which was attended by many resic.lints. Migimportant issues were discussed, most important of which appearedh d to impacts to neighboring residential districts. ,fie APNOMP:EL Commissioner Obert asked what was happening ith theri,GrOW*049Vp00. 4*. Air 4M.:46',:gmeor Associate Ericson told the Commissioners that the property belonged to thtlligittrchard,s and the property had two different appraisals: ?nel$1000th's appraiser and one by the owner's appraiser. There is a $10,000 dollar diffOoltitiojwInthe two appraisals and this difference will need to be resolved before tliWownerstrittto sell the property. This property is part of the housing replacementprogram. %i o I Director Jopke added that the BlariOgeprogOESabeiigoked at as part of the Highway 10 redevelopment. • The Commissioners discussed tke negative feed bag:; the community is giving to the ring road concept and howgilfali-this1cism is in of the fact that the ring road at this time is just a conceptie Dig* *J°Pke 4#1: ..1118crrnissiculatig-e had been some discussion with Charlie J11 the owner Hall h ofiff4atiftnajd propeitSi. Mr. d approached the City requesting a • s'"'"$so he develop tax Inge.ntelfsistaneIphoti*. his banquet hall m conjunction with the As it ttamotthe banquet facility does not generate enough tax incrementaigtEthe kind*f assistance that he is looking for. Mr. Hall was made aware of nces and was told that ahotel development would be needed ..along with the.1;4.11410rotij facility to make the tax increment scenario work. Mr. Hall has talked with a devit..8. fia......Ahat would be interested in a hotel project and the development ....... ....... process is moviniforward. ........, ......... .„„. •191- Director Jopke suggested that the City take steps to invs.tigate other possible Miatlevelopmaalong County Road H; the properties adjoining the Mermaid site. ''''RESIMP'Comprehensive Plan Commissioner Brooks asked if the Comprehensive Plan review would be done as a regular part of the Planning Commission meeting agendas. • Chair Peterson stated that the Comprehensive Plan review procedure is made part of the { Mounds View Planning Commission November 5, 1997111 Regular Meeting Page 4 Planning Commission regular agendas. Commission Stevenson suggested that along with the two monthly meetin `that are now scheduled for the Planning Commission that a third meeting be sceduled6r Comprehensive Plan review issues only. :YY.<. ' Commissioner Brasaemle suggested that the Coi@fehensive P ' `i s Benda items- be made part of the regularly planned Commission meetings: long of im iwed.;. e added, if the regular session agendas get too ful`` ;Y >'i :):06YY:' "1" � andl�:� e Comprele :s< � :::}• review, then a third meeting could be scheduled fr IMENEW Director Jopke suggested that a task force could to" ied to handle the Comprehensive Plan review. v The Commission unanimously stated that hi i ht`' £ ast experiences with the task force scenario that they would prefer the .vmmisoon as a; ole to review the 1 Comprehensive Pan. Commissioner Johnston ask,..ed.ift there. could be a ew Comprehensive Plan use map • drawn up. '''' Director Jopke stated:Y.tlt one of t €i of the Plan review is to create an up- Cv:YYYY;iiriY: dat - map and •'ementations...........::a ,.. Co i r StevensonSteviiiifejegiiftd,that the Comprehensive Plan review is also a time for any rezalgnmk night take pha Diutoi•Joplt}e commissioners to review and make any comments/suggestions the Proposed gram that was included in the agenda packets for each pi: Vf ::::«`Commissioner. AS Director Jopkeasked the Commissioners how they wanted to handle community input for the Comprehensive Plan review. « ssioner Brooks suggested advertisement through the Mounds View Matters. Commissioner Obert suggested that the City Staff create a schedule that could be printed in the local media. This open forum schedule would make it possible for all interested parties to participate in the review process. . • Mounds View Planning Commission November 5, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 5 Commissioner Brasaemle suggested an informative article in the Mounds View Matters that filly explains what the Comprehensive Plan is. .xz Director Jopke suggested structuring the forums according to thelevertstricts into which the Comprehensive Plan is divided. ii+C'LitiCij• �.`ti w ossm The Commissioners unanimously agreed that th ti`ti .� �t ;tnct apprQa �ivtise. Agip;. atiy 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner Rech:s ti•:M13.�{?ti`xa�a:4tiativ.v.v y.` N~ t ; %< y 'logy "''+'titiatititi ti>.ti>.:ii:Ltti•. nu No reports were considered from the Chairperson or Coriis. 7. Adjournment There being no further business before the Re #' <;of the Platitiog Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:01 P.m.: FInnai Respectfully ful submitted tier, • „dr Air :tiCa ::L�'�{>'A 1}ti{` �titLLttiL'{.. :tivYtiiiiY Rick Jo i P. Commu t kppment mall: , WiSidenenginr • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting November 19, 1997 Moundkif..itw City hall 2410 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call To Order ••"" ..Ariglingli4:,.... .,.:"' ,.... .60" VatiNkks:nogiiiir . .::Kii ::. The meeting was called to order by Chairpersonlgigrsoq,40.1:02 p.m., Nixotwok "....,............,... .......,. 1997. 4.11.1.119 •ViRinii.;',.:M.. 2. Roll Call AMEMIS:,,. Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners ittNieli14tBrooks, Johnston, Miller, Obert and Stevenson. ..,:061111111b, IiiMP INV ..,...,... ...,.........,...............,..,......, ....,... ................,.................................,. ......., ......,..............,............................., ........., Members absent: None ...... -...-. _a.. ........., .........._.........-.....-...........w.„.. ...:.. ..... ........ .. ..... .. ..... ........„..„..,............, .... ..........„....................... ......., ..... ..... ..... ..:. ..... ..... ..... .....„.. ...... • , giiii:, .1i -: Also present: Community 1104opmentibirector Jtke, Planning Associate Ericson, City Council Liaison KoopmeinftioSlIF Consulting G.c.Op Senior Planner Patrick Peters, and :igisw AM ..ag Recorder Dave Hix. .::.,. „AMON REEREW 1 3. cifirito.RequeOgagamment§ii*ViNiffi Not on the Agenda 1 legiNdik 1111111k,,,i::, '.. TheNtWeitositizeiNtaittor.comments on items Not on the agenda. ...:.:angiabh::.... %:::in.: ::i.;::.• :.. VP. Index Minutesto:,. 'INNIank Page PlannipOtase No. 501-'11454392-97, Southeast corner of Highway 10 and 1 Silver take Road, Consi4 #46n of Resolution Nos. 526-97 and 515-97, Regarding a Preliminarttlat.and Development Review, respectively, for t Silver View Estate Planned Unit Development reorganizing eight #(#41$into four parcels and the Planned Unit Development consisting of a titi.fidap,..Gas.Statipri, Car Wash and Convenience Store; a Two-story Office ...:::Inpff S4443Wpiti#Zthe-story Office Building; and an 82-Unit Senior Residential • Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 1997 • Special Meeting Page 2 4. & 5. Planning Case Nos. 501-97 and 502-97 Southeast corner of Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road Applicant: Silverview Estates, Inc. Consideration of Resolution No. 526-97 regarding a Prelimingy Plat f w the tverview Estates" Planned Unit Development reorganizing eight parcels into f rparcelg .Oon ideration of Resolution No. 515-97 regarding a Development Review;; lie prop9014181ivi Estates':<> ' Planned Unit Development consisting of a Holiday Gas *.tion, Car; ? ash an C mve.ence::;: /` Store; a two-story office building and a one-story officeMilding,, d an 82-uniiiWatifEntial building. Thea applicant Silverview Estates Inc. was resent. }�'� `• l `}"'` For discussionu oses Planner Peters:: ' ommission t <eombine agenda item P rP g Nos. 4 and 5 and then divide the two:ies''attp :;they arg>considered for vote. The request was granted by the anmissiOr •' Planner Peters gave his presentation,a follows: Ordinance No. 599 aEring the Planned;> ' Development rezoning was approved May 27..:> , At an, ?, 1997 PP �' ommission meeting it was determined that there >:several : t.;needed to`be resolved before the Planning Commission couldcOdfailia*Atiy.actiontilhiliest to approve the development plan. Additionally, the developmentdevelORWRiim had beenawa t mg preliminary approval from MN/DOT for the propomiiiitaglagtong TROpyas identified on the plat. On October 9, 1997, MN/DOT gran€ `prelfr .roval for the requested curb cuts, and as a result of the approval ::the applicant has ' i toward completion of the submittal package for consideration €vby the Planning Cession. <`< Planner Petersntinued with the presentation of the Development Review: Jar The print original buildingfoot has changed form the allowable maximum g h tot e will require an amendment 1 e 0 Thismodification 0 80 0 f 84 00 to 115 q was approvedon PUD resolution that May27, 1997. This will be done ...•.... prior to City Council action. 2. The amounts and percentages of pervious and impervious surfaces shown on the site plans for each of the lots within the PUD are inaccurate. The . • Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 1997 Special Meeting Page 3 applicant has submitted corrected data and it was presented to the Commission for their review. i�$�M14 3. Building heights are mislabeled on the latest submission fww<#die proposed Holiday Stationstore. These inaccuracies will aids g rected prior to City Council action. 4. Relevant details for the canopy that shows helot,mate\`::ii props d signing was presented to the Commission arj e Novembt meeting. .<;... « ` #M1v 5. The site plan indicates the required s » t sback for the parking lot but there are labels with the plan that',glow a< ion. These inaccuracies will be correcte4bNAtte applic4Utikibb 6. A revised landscape la: ''tastted showingthe required plant material informatioend the.„404,40 WiirOVide a plant-material-to be- maintained label f 'the area showi ` ng vegetation. The City • Forester has reviewed the plan and 40 recommended three changes to species. Thes ' anges:sre as follows: a. _ ;Ni*e WeepingWill will be replaced with River Birch. >., b.. ' ' Chuckle ' b:rose will be replaced with Nearly Wild shrub 1'' :.. c ':i: ' >:13arr n crab will replaced aced wi th Red Splendor, Spring P P g .,,g$fgr drift and Pink Spires. Co mirssioner mle expressed his concern that the birch would be susceptible to ;birch bore. 11110>: • Planner Peters td tie Commission that the river birch were selected because of their 111 natural immunito the birch bore. AEA :<vx>,l<. ommis. <z;>:,:<;_;>» ;� �iOier Johnston inquired about the City having an easement inside the buffer MININWIVErer to properly maintain the vegetation. Planner Peters told the Commission that the easement would be unnecessary as long as it is stated on the PUD plan that the area will be maintained by the City. 110 Planner Peters continued: Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 1997 Special Meeting Page 4 7. The Rice Creek Watershed District approved the required permit on October 22, 1997. 8. The City Engineer has identified three issues that Aig nee it be addressed before approving the development. These were:+`'`•e' : follows: a. Lack of distance between thilidet and outlet # :.TURP pond < .400" Naidak, on Lot 3. :. b. Ensure that the culverts u#� S:tr the Paul WateNVi `f way function properly. {" st'' c. Ensure that emergency oveiONAIN the NURP pond on lot 4 is directed away from the une 'gi ages and toward the street. These issues are addressed as.> ditions of' p3 ?. Q Planning Commission Resolution N '> ? ASOMMEiLiC 9. The light fixture types missina '# a g t'proposal were addressed and the applicant:: esented mples t 'fixtures for the Commission's review. ``' • ARP Planner Peters stated thatMere are cerns abut off-site glare. The developer of the Holiday StationstoretkasiiWen asked'to l: `ways in which this glare could be reduced. N `` tometric;; twere made` 4litElle for the Commission to review. This a b < 3ows an aper xi to 50 percent reduction in glare with the use of a baffle 111111111116, sys ems_. . elo er a tiessed the Commission and said that the glare could be Chuck;:: . it �g �!, p 3:.,_ reduced by'ti e bgb baf e"tystem and presented this baffle system to the Commission "'their review Planner Peters stgted.that it is SRF's recommendation to use the baffle system and consider a threeionth review that is based on the level of complaints that are made by the area resid #ts to the glare of the lights and the baffle system. 5.4 "00and reminded the Commission that a well-lit store is a safer store. Planner Peters continued: 10. Snow storage areas not identified on the original plan have been identified. One problem still existing is the snow storage for Lot 4 is shown within the • Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 1997 • Special Meeting Page 5 wetland. The applicant will modify the location of this snow storage area so that it is not within the wetland. 11. Sign types for Lots 2 &4 have been submitted. Hiveveygo6 sign detail was submitted for the Holiday Stationstore. The apph t provided information at the November 19, 1997 19gil:.eting-44tjiiikmyed design considerations as requested by the •• ssion..> l.40ie' t will also show on the plan the required 101 sig '� "`•"'` `'` `a s �Il setbacl >k°` •„k`Y2#.#.�#`•y,•`wk;?,``.2 also," show igaik svegszikammor Nommor 12. As requested by the Commission` :;vehicle service fac F $been relocated to the rear of the Holidayt € ore. Containment and disposal of waste from the RVs is iscOblOtolthcpugh the City's sanitary sewer system. An amendment titiatie PUD wW d to be made to allow for the operation of the RV f.49.4ity., Commissioner Brooks expressed her t ce he stationo operating on a 24-hour P P g basis and having the RV facility in:the rear of of:Ifigiggaiiiiimijk security might not be as available. • Ar Mr. Durand told the Con ion thOlti average V facility collects approximately 100 gallons a day during the *Finer molt.4isk Co; r ssioner Johnstonu este '``tY e`Ci Engineer make a recommendation in . {.. •::.:>:�:::� ,>:• ,;moiw: regards>t ; e propiA ing of the-Waste directly into the City's sanitary sewer Y Associggifilialpld the Commission that he had asked the City Engineer'neer about the dumping situat oggilhe City Engineer told Ericson that the proposed dumping wouldn't _ gatively impa : pm. Commissioner Stevenson asked the developer how they plannedto curtail abuse of the dumping system:'' '<Commbi}ssi0er Miller suggested that the dump facility could be operated on a lock-and- Ralph Durand agreed saying that this lock-and-key operation is how most RV facilities are run. • Planner Peters suggested that the lock-and-key operation be made a condition of approval. Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 1997 0 Special Meeting Page 6 Planner Peters continued: 13. The reference to "NERP" ponds, an incorrect spelling, will be corrected to read "NURP" prior to City Council action. ..._ AORP — .......– A ..Mitor 14. Three additional handicap parking stalls&e shown on Lot 2 adjacent to the building's main entrance. In addjOA:1:**p must be modified, in accordance with ADArequireme*to ghitEm:bed....i90, parking space per every 25 parkirWaces#the underground :0* facility. The applicant has agreedr00Whese revisions. 10110" 11111211k„,... Commissioner Johnston asked if the parking stalls,VidiftaDn the plan, met City requirements. diir NEEMEL... Planner Peters Peters told the Commission that ttiggOtg.an adequate irtimber of parking spaces to meet City Code and addedg0iteggpigrogis ovem5arked. ...„...„.......................,. .......:...:.... ...... ...... ...... Planner Peters continued: ,... aitt Ar lir • 15. Parking stagtcpLots Wmeet the Omimum 180 square feet size but are configure,f018' instaoftheAlidard 9'x20'. It is recommended by SRF that the giffa width 0itteatAltdfid the loss in length will not be dKlimiiiimmoy 11.11N, detrimental on-site parking' The PUD will be amended to reflect this ONSIL c14601111111116... ... Commisstongegrasaenft**000 to the commissions attention the fact that the site plan and elsygimp4-0$hpw the ramp on different sides of the building where as the plans should tatr show the in the same location. •:•:1:aiCii;EM:, VOMME.iii:r Charles Radloftiltikitti architect told the Commission that the site plan is correct and this inaccuracy w.0 an oversight on his part and the drawings would be corrected to reflect current Ofiditions. „...................„, ...... ............—..., ...:.:.:, ..,......... Planner Peters continued: ......................................„......„........ .................–.................„ „............................................„......._. 16. Conflicts in the landscaping plan will be amended so that planting details will appear only on sheet 1 of the Landscaping Plan and on sheet LI for the Holiday Stationstore. • 1 • Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 1997 Special Meeting Page 7 17. The PUD agreement will be amended so that language is included that reflects the owners intent to recycle at least 60 percent of the water used in the car wash facility. 18. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the plans and req** tat the fire department connection to the senior:ung btilkfiqtathe two-story office building be accessible year-r and at all times 141K on, an „....„,„" adequate sprinkler system must be Installed where co . material are present. Also, an additional ft hydrant s required `' ' Id'e of Silver Lake Road toward the sou * the senior buildiit , stly, the fire hydrant to be located in front o < on Highway 10 shall be kept free of any winter snow storage. 4,i1P. r . '<'x;>} Mike Black, the developer's representative :,requested that te:Gper be given the opportunity to talk directly with the Fire: t }regards ti additional fire hydrant that is being requested on the east sideS tvLakeRoad Vineling under Silver Lake Road to get to the water main whig#4s locatedbilaiitqtgeon of the road would be very cost prohibitive and the develop would life}to exf; :vternative approaches to solve • < this problem. .;> Planner Peters continued :•,:v.'y +v" 9. TWapplialit will lAldwitigement dimensions for the future gateway ANEW elemontimap Preliminary Plat. `'"'Vein<gga m se C€ " "1;Wre uited an additional three feet of right-of-way t- of-wa for of`S "Lake Road to proposed Lot 4 be dedicated and ...�?:} adjacent •}:•}:.•:<•:; nal ten feet of right-of-way dedicated adjacent to Lot 1. The tepligion should be modified to allow for a reduced setback of 27 feetfd the senior housing structure and site. 21. .0e e Preliminary Plat shows a ten-foot drainage and utility easement along = 'H10. A similar ten-foot drainage and utility easement along Silver Lake Road will need to be added to the plat. vIl ` 'fate Ericson told the Commission that the City staff is in discussion with the City Engineer to find out if the County right-of-way would be adequate for any utility purposes. • Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 1997 • Special Meeting Page 8 Planner Peters told the Commissioners that the utilities and the drainage are accommodated within the right-of-way and that no additional easements along a frontage would be necessary. y > .SkM1 Mr. Black added that in either case it would not be a Problem tox :: ; e extra easement if it is needed. ATHMINIhk. < ::: Planner Peters continued: ::;tip " ? ' "" 1110‘..," " " ' "ir The City PlanningStaff recommends the Plannirission approve Ren Nos. 515-97 and 526-97 recommending approval of the kh..,e nt Review and Preliminary Plat, respectively, for Silverview Estates with con4itimOmpf.gd and subject to stipulations. • Planner Peters reviewed the list of addle n...., ... itions as rated` t~this meeting: a. Canopy lighting will have the twbaffles,„014.40vgimystem will be subject to a complaint based review ager a threliitfiontWOKtar . b. A security lock be installed on theV servicefacility pipes. • c. A cross easement lliarparedfOrthe park g on Lots 2 & 4. d. The rampon the *ration s ?` h�iNo. 4 �c�>the senior housing plan be changed to reflect the mof:' `site lard:>< >?<` <«>` 4 W:?i<;;�: �v e. .4111Add langu reflects t : day Stationstore owners intent to recycle 60 Votologggnt of` ash water CommiSingtOMiller statedResolution No. 515-97 on the third page, item three, the Fire: demo, and a additional fire hydrant on the east side of Silver Lake theiiiplicant and the discussion of it being moved to the west e had not beef< ss<= Planner Peters told the Commission suggested that the language in the resolution be ; changed to reackithat the fire hydrant would be located on Silver Lake Road on the south end of the sed'building subject of review and approval of the Fire Marshall. < ee Ericson stated that he would revise the resolution language to include the > t€§""date stamp". Commissioner Johnston asked if there would be any cost to the City to develop the access points as needed in the development. • • 1 Mounds View Planning Commission November 19, 1997 111110 Special Meeting Page 9 Associate Ericson told the Commission that it is the City's intent that all cost to develop these access points will be the responsibility of the developer and this language would be included in the development contract. >'ti iii`, •` Commissioner Stevenson addressed the applicant asking if th ' epted the park dedication fee as required by the City. �``"'' :,..x�::xx. �: {.. ..� �„• •x,,,.,�xxr •rax nl{xx4 �,. .Rxxxxx% •'�.xx•�:Kxv3i4 {4.;:�': Mr. Black answered saying that an appraisal of the property{1s bee i And th park dedication fee of 10 percent of the appraise , lue is•"'` eptable. Hetadded "{"s;;" r<; �` �ti 'the Cityand at ` � red thanks and appreciation for the hard work that v >; y > Commissions and Councils. ::x:w:xx•xxµa :' k Wix}x Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Comms t questions and comments. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to recommend f Resolemigime :o 'o. 526-97, a ix. s:$:x1. x:. resolution recommending approval of the Pre 'naryt € SilvervitEstates, Southeast corner of Highway 10 and silver Lake Rom ''lannirn w ' : -$O 7. • Ayes - 7is:.:x. Nm. '- 0 ..viii, ix: k, xxxx> Motion carried. :<x: >"v Motion/S: ;x Johnstw ete n to recq: : s approval of Resolution No. 515-97, a resolutic ending'''" ? f the proposed Silverview Estates Planned unit Development consisting'o . x Statics; x wash and convenience store; a two-story office building and a one-stor s ildin ;.a S;Unit senior residential building, as amended with stipulations and:t t >as noted, theast corner of Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road, Planning C:. To '5t iimpii �; Ayes - 6 linger Nays - 1 1n carried. hliel!bairperson Peterson recognized Commissioner Stevenson for a statement on his no Commissioner Stevenson stated for the record: After two or three years of looking at this property for redevelopment it was an unanimous opinion of the Commission that a gas station at this location would not serve the best interest of Mounds View. The rezoning of 11111 this property to a B-3 use was denied on that basis. The owner has gone with a PUD to J Mounds View:Planning Commission November 19, 1997 • Special Meeting Page 10 get the property developed into a gas station: As long as this property is going to be developed into a gas station facility,'Stevenson said, "I am going to be opposed to it." •6. Staff Reports/Information Items <.>:L .ii.'" { ii} There were no staff reports. .. { ;>.`>. ,�:, }`'y 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports `'a .i{i 1 ` , M1 ,.\jV' _ VYv} }4 Lv �'.�'.::}v�'Li•{"•.}:>i L@iYv.i: �y�' � •i}��rZ�".:•��.�' t`v`ii<i�i:ArF There were no Chairperson or Planning Commis, ; "reports. `ii}:.}}}•,` 4 y \ i 8. Adjournment To Agenda Session Y - There being no further business before the S 1,,Meeting heel ning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the me • 9.p.m: i,`"`''i'``"i Y '•:::::ilii.•""+}iiiiii::::::iitii:iA ::+}� '•";iii}F.:::3•}xy:i:•:{vy:. (The agenda session was held immediately fof ' € :adjournment of the Special session.) `< �. > y'. 0 • Respectfully submitted, :< _� <>..> ?' {z.Y ii' :4•*. gisiki.ii is X..'ii :'{t2:'{•«...2i:.:0.- .._ Rick Jopke+�. ii >:{::i:. < ;<< }. 4i}� ii{{t }: Community D t t Director11 _ • • #i i{wii::;:. iiitiv.i 'iviii • S