Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-19-1998
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • AUGUST 19, 1998 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. Approval of Minutes: a. July 1, 1998 (Regular) 5. Planning Case No. 531-98 Property Involved: 2185 Pinewood Drive Consideration of Resolution No. 554-98, a Resolution Recommending Approval • of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Accessory Building Applicant: Tammy Bellamy 6. Planning Case No. 532-98 Property Involved: 2400 County Road J Consideration of Resolution No. 555-98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Development Review Request Applicant: Sysco Foods 7. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Discussion Regarding Comprehensive Plan b. Discussion Regarding Recommendation to Expand Planning Commission to Nine Members c. Update Regarding Mermaid Bowling Center Expansion 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717-4000 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (Immediately Following Special Meeting) AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. July 15, 1998 (Regular) 2. Discussion of Possible Variance Request for a Reduced Parking Lot Setback for Mermaid (Representatives from Mermaid, Herbst& Sons and Perkins Restaurant to be Present) 3. Interview of Candidates for Planning Commission Vacancy 4. Meeting Adjournment N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\08-19-98.AGN • • t REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION • Meeting Date: August 19, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 531-98 Request: Conditional Use Permit for a 1,008 sf Oversized Garage Petitioner: Tammy Bellamy Location: 2185 Pinewood Drive PIN No. 05-30-23-43-0032 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential Applicable Regulations: 1104.01. Subd. 4: Accessory buildings detached from principal building shall have a setback of 5 feet. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in the front yard. 1106.03. Subd. Id: No garage shall exceed 864 square feet except by CUP. • 1106.03. Subd. lh: The combined square footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 25% of the rear yard. 1106.04. Subd.6: The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed 1,264 square feet; if the garage square footage is greater than 1,000 square feet, no other accessory building shall be allowed, the garage width cannot exceed 35 feet nor allow for more than three vehicle access. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plans Structure Map Background: 2185 Pinewood Drive is located at the corner of Pinewood Drive and Quincy Street,just north of County Road I. The property is approximately 16,000 square feet. Presently there is a small, one-story residence and a detached single-car garage on the corner lot. The applicant had requested a similar CUP in 1997, but chose to withdraw her request before action was taken by the City Council. The current request is for a 1,008 square foot detached garage, 24 feet by 42 feet, to be located 13 feet from the house and 13 feet from the west property line. The garage • would be set back further on the property than the house. Recently the City Council adopted Ordinance 620 which changed some of the dimension requirements pertaining to garages. Because this ordinance does not go into effect until September 4, 1998, this application will be judged based on the existing Code. Bellamy CUP Request 2185 Pinewood Drive August 19, 1998 Page 2 • Dimensional Requirements: Required Provided Met/Not Met Garage Setbacks (Front) 70 feet 80 feet Met (Side) 5 feet 13 feet Met (Rear) 5 feet 38 feet Met Percent of Rear Yard* < 25% 15% Met Garage Width s 35 feet 22 feet Met Area of all Accessory Buildings: s 1,264 Sq. ft. 1,008 Sq. ft. Met Analysis: At past Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the issue of building a proportional relationship requirement between a house and garage has been discussed. Those discussions led to the adopting of Ordinance 620, which in this case, would not impact the applicant's request. While the proposed garage is significantly larger than the house (1,008 sf for the garage compared to only 682 for the house), under either set of guidelines, a CUP would be required. The rear yard is large enough to meet the 20% rear yard coverage limitation. The question remains, • however, "is the proposed garage too large for he site and the home?" To balance this concern, the advantages of such a garage, such as creating adequate storage space for the resident's vehicles and yard appliances, need to be considered. Because of privacy fencing used by the applicant and the adjoining neighbor, the full effect of the garage would be shielded from either street view. As presented, the proposal meets all of the criteria imposed by the Code, as addressed in the dimensional requirements above. Staff feels, in this instance, that the benefits of such a garage may outweigh any disadvantages. The driveway to the current garage is about 80 feet long and unpaved. The applicant has shown on the "proposed" site plan to be improving the driveway with concrete. If this CUP request is recommended for approval, one requirement shall be that the driveway be improved with a permanent surface within three months of taking out the building permit for the garage. An additional requirement imposed by approving this CUP would be to further screen the proposed garage by means of erecting a privacy fence parallel to Pinewood Drive between the garage and the property line to the west. Adverse Effects Of the criteria listed in Section 1125.01, Sub. 3 for granting conditional use permits, the proposal appears to satisfy the requirements with the possible exception of two: • Bellamy CUP Request 2185 Pinewood Drive • August 19, 1998 Page 3 (2) "The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value..." (3) "The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties." Depending upon one's interpretation of the request in terms of the"intensity" of the proposed garage in comparison to the existing home and neighboring homes, the proposal may be in conflict with the two above-noted criteria. Staffs concern with this proposal is the size of the garage (1,008 sf) in comparison to the house (682 sf) The width of the garage from the street view, however, is similar to the house. The bulk of the garage will not be seen from the street. It is desirable from a community perspective to have property owners improve their properties with garages since the properties are then usually kept in better order. Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council approval or denial of this Conditional Use Permit application, requested by Tammy Bellamy, 2185 Pinewood Drive. N:IDATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCAS ES\53 I-98\2185PINE.PC 1 • trn- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ' 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 5511. -p.,Menti'e' 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information pp Name of Applicant (Q r,a_ro. o,a�n,,,;j ge.t'Ct-rn Telephone (, — 37 4. Address _ __.._...__._..__ ..01-1 ?5— met-04304 { - .._ .__ . --- Fax — Y'n 0ld:'^.4 S Vi etu Y)'1 Interest in Property(check appropriate box) a- Owner of Property,:- �� -tom_ rj , = Q •: -Contract for Deed Owner ",s-pati _ ::1-_,Z - z-. -.r• at-_ o Lessee,Operator,Manager f ti Agreement to Purchase s. o Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal • - Address or General Location o'Z 1 MF5 rvivaA? Legal Description :. .� _ _ • P ty Identificati #{Pnv#j `a . c .30_, .4-3 da _ #of Acres Current Zoning f .i Type of Application . - ___ a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 7.- - .•• $250 .. - a Rezoning $250/acre, min$250 max$1500 a Major Subdivision - -- -- $250+$250 deposit* a Minor Subdivision $200 a Planned Unit Development(PUD) •_:, - ; ;_ Refer to rezoning fees a PUD Amendment $350 Conditional Use Permit . R-1, • .1 others 5250 • - a Variance R-1, R- 100 all others$250 Code Appeal .._.-: : :.- $100 a Develop Review/Site Plan - $125/acre;min$125 max$750 a ;Wetland Alteration Permit - -_,; _ .R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 _ a :Wetland Buffer Permit "; . : ... .___. �..R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 a _Floodplain Permit $200 a Other *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, II/ research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, M1' Development Application Page 2 Present Use of Property • ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant m? Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling a Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) Property Classification ❑ Abstract ❑ Torrens 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. ""'" `, J3; ' Signature of Applicant � - C� Name of Applicant(typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner `-to,„,fk, \e-`C� Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) ` �- U .`. ,::n Address of Owner a-1 - ne-341 i0e1 ..'. ..-..�{--..« .,.,ter Phone Number of Owner .._. (b12S 1 b FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal 7-/o - Date of Acceptance Assigned to: • :- =: :- Planning Case No. 5-31-k & 60-day Limit 120-day limit • ....,-_e Fees Paid:_ Account# Check# =Receipt# Application:. ,IC 75 - . - - - 973 Sl "S 13 3 9 Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: • Total: -. N:1DATAUGROUPSICOMDEV1FOR.4iS1DEVAPP.FOR _. /98 - tai '1231\ch N M•':i:la�f;0l:i�•t •X91 �'' ,0 ��� �N 5661 • COLONIAL VILLAGE cs‘` S. .. MOBILE OBILE HPARK ao � co n 0 N (7) VN ' ® N N N N N Nc7 0 c, O O (0 n Q! HILLVIEW ^ (0 ^ n ^ 'n 0 3 O (c. '• 0 1' cp m 0 '!' c � CON 0 Nm NO NN(C) O NNO e• n N NO O co rnnN øyN O O)NQf m NNN N NN NNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N . OAKWOOD x N N N N N N N N N up 0 :4DR IT P a a, nagal PARK. r 5618 N N NC•4 C4 N NN N u' N O n .n 5590 i r` rn n N 01 •-• N ^ N 5612N (40020700 /-!(A PF C e• M n N ^ 4 01 02 CO 0 0 0 0 0 �AQOD N N N N ! N N N N N N N N N N N N ]' co 5606 N N N N N N N O coc0 m N to m ND c0 m O N m O to O 5604 N Nin N c0 cn v n in N ^ 0 p 02 O O N N t` n �� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N0 N (D N r g Ira mai 5562 N0 N N N N N N : 5556 Pri ^ N rnm n N n nn r`N w - in rO. ^ m tn n1 o o O CO • 5550 g ,a m N m m 0TERRAC5. . _ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N N O DR 5544! N N N N r. o , a (0 • N N co N (0 m N W 0 e• <0 'O t1) (� c1 In N N O CO .. N 10 • t() A' r) M N O al cf (0N N 553$ N N N N N®nag• N N N V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 5532> N PINEWOOD �� #44111/3 DR • ,n N co N rn n N w n N ^ r.N ca (0 N 5526 ao o a n n N 0 0 0 m r. CO (0 N c corO e' rn 5520 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 'N N N N N (y N N N N N N N N ( 1 I i N 5511 3: UNE.2 II" 5511 5512 u) MLA 5497 5 • O 5472 5503 cc 5504 5499 P I N EWO O DII r. N N N•hirm �'co �'' 5493 5494 5493 SCHOOL 5480 I 5479 5485 5486 5485 5500 5474 5473lin 5475 5478 5475 -4 5468 5467 5464 5467 W 5462 5463 5466 1 Q 5463 5459 I- 5445 5454 5.155 5456 44• G\4 S 5453 E- (A 5446 5447 a 5435G�� srsp 5447 N tit UW5444 5441 aFirms 5439 n (0 0 Ic Tr Z5434 5433 �`�� 5433 N N N N N N u75426 5425 `s�2 5425BFI ! FOQLN t0 to U) 4 7 5420 5421 542* 5419 N N N N N n 5401 5414 5415 5414 M M N . o 0 541.3 N N n N1 N N m I- n N 5406 5405 5406 N N N N CV I i 5405 N N N N N N N 538. < ;ON DRIVE 537 0- /Th Zoning Map Planning Case 532-98 Applicant: Tammy Bellamy IVG� a 11111 Location: 2185 Pinewood Drive ,.. • Design Works (R), Knox Lum'--r, , # 212, Phone # 483-541 ) Thu Jul 09 16:48:59 1998❑ The materials in this garage will cost $3867.96 This Price does not • Plan ID: CQ6282 Drawing: 3-Dimensional View WI • ��,_ �'" "".11, 11+rte " ";*.t...144: 14'.;.,---_4,..-4Plmo..4::::717:mme... --..;:......4-7.47:1;,14,:',1;1:14 4. i li 1 w �� tea• ,ers�ro. 'µz,. • '�. .` r . 'rar• 1 r„w tee. fir ' � ��<�� '; [ ''[. i F I;1IJJJ:2. ♦rrN • jiiI1Lp 1 70 /7 r r Ask For A Construction Detail Sheet Before You Begin Your Project 0 resign works (R), Knox Lum>'^r, , # 212, Phone # 483-5411 • I'h u Jul 09 16:48:59 1998❑ ?Ian ID: CQ6282 Drawing: Plan View • 24' ti • • .`C .4` t• { t,•:R • ---Tiry\I^A.V &_,\VXYYN-•-\ i- 0-1'61 1-",nei8 C-. ! . . . I ... . . _. . . 1. • . , ... . -- X.. - -- .-, r --- • - . .. • •41 cy... . . .. - . I ...... .' 1111119111 ...... 1.66.csi Me,4 cs ....... I .......... f. _.....• __... ••-•._. ... -..-... .- .. _.....T. :. . 7114 - „•A ij t ' i Cr • 1 tif - ...1 • (.-1'. Q.- /1. III •••• d . , i vo, \ • • , . ' ; \ • , .../ ..1 E . . ( ,j 1 1 \ 1, , 1- -)i , •1/ I. ? ! Qt I --r- - • I I DV> ____L. • ----_D( Qi,. ‘04.I '11* ,---VNI - - . — • - . . ---- , .)C1/4_ • / 1 \ p(c; Ft osE.o 4 . 0 4 i i T 4 : /. I 1 I I • . .' 5 . . . ...)-- . 1.1 . . i 4, ij • It_4(., . .1 _ , r • . - • ,- - i 1 1 111111M—T- . -. ...;....-..- .. .... .....• .... I ., ..., .. . ..* . . . r P •- , i'''.17.,;-,1 /-I •••• f . . . f I i ci•-•1 • _) I Ni • -.. i I ...do„..a2.7... 44-v e • I--—• i t •It, t;44...4.-•%/e . ' . I .'..•. e ......) <_—,...,g L4 --.—:=1 I ! 1, 1 fxre- • ft 1 1 1 44, v i - I I I . I I ,I ..' 1 • :I-; le 1 4 I '2 : ( i I :• 1. 1i I !! It I It; • 1 I Tog I til i ! . ! REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION • Meeting Date: August 19, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 531-98 Request: Conditional Use Permit for a 1,008 sf Oversized Garage Petitioner: Tammy Bellamy Location: 2185 Pinewood Drive PIN No. 05-30-23-43-0032 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential Applicable Regulations: 1104.01. Subd. 4: Accessory buildings detached from principal building shall have a setback of 5 feet. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in the front yard. 1106.03. Subd. Id: No garage shall exceed 864 square feet except by CUP. • 1106.03. Subd. 1h: The combined square footage for all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more than 25% of the rear yard. 1106.04. Subd.6: The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one lot cannot exceed 1,264 square feet; if the garage square footage is greater than 1,000 square feet, no other accessory building shall be allowed, the garage width cannot exceed 35 feet nor allow for more than three vehicle access. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Site Plans Structure Map Background: 2185 Pinewood Drive is located at the corner of Pinewood Drive and Quincy Street,just north of County Road I. The property is approximately 16,000 square feet. Presently there is a small, one-story residence and a detached single-car garage on the corner lot. The applicant had requested a similar CUP in 1997, but chose to withdraw her request before action was taken by the City Council. The current request is for a 1,008 square foot detached garage, 24 feet by 42 feet, to be located 13 feet from the house and 13 feet from the west property line. The garage would be set back further on the property than the house. Recently the City Council adopted • Ordinance 620 which changed some of the dimension requirements pertaining to garages. Because this ordinance does not go into effect until September 4, 1998, this application will be judged based on the existing Code. Bellamy CUP Request 2185 Pinewood Drive August 19, 1998 • Page 2 Dimensional Requirements: Required Provided Met/Not Met Garage Setbacks (Front) 70 feet 80 feet Met (Side) 5 feet 13 feet Met (Rear) 5 feet 38 feet Met Percent of Rear Yard* < 25% 15% Met Garage Width S 35 feet 22 feet Met Area of all Accessory Buildings: S 1,264 Sq. ft. 1,008 Sq. ft. Met Analysis: At past Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the issue of building a proportional relationship requirement between a house and garage has been discussed. Those discussions led to the adopting of Ordinance 620, which in this case, would not impact the applicant's request. While the proposed garage is significantly larger than the house (1,008 sf for the garage compared to only 682 for the house), under either set of guidelines, a CUP would be required. The rear yard is large enough to meet the 20% rear yard coverage limitation. The question remains, • however, "is the proposed garage too large for he site and the home?" To balance this concern, the advantages of such a garage, such as creating adequate storage space for the resident's vehicles and yard appliances, need to be considered. Because of privacy fencing used by the applicant and the adjoining neighbor, the full effect of the garage would be shielded from either street view. As presented, the proposal meets all of the criteria imposed by the Code, as addressed in the dimensional requirements above. Staff feels, in this instance, that the benefits of such a garage may outweigh any disadvantages. The driveway to the current garage is about 80 feet long and unpaved. The applicant has shown on the "proposed" site plan to be improving the driveway with concrete. If this CUP request is recommended for approval, one requirement shall be that the driveway be improved with a permanent surface within three months of taking out the building permit for the garage. An additional requirement imposed by approving this CUP would be to further screen the proposed garage by means of erecting a privacy fence parallel to Pinewood Drive between the garage and the property line to the west. Adverse Effects Of the criteria listed in Section 1125.01, Sub. 3 for granting conditional use permits, the proposal appears to satisfy the requirements with the possible exception of two: • Bellamy CUP Request 2185 Pinewood Drive August 19, 1998 • Page 3 (2) "The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value..." (3) "The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties." Depending upon one's interpretation of the request in terms of the "intensity" of the proposed garage in comparison to the existing home and neighboring homes, the proposal may be in conflict with the two above-noted criteria. Stars concern with this proposal is the size of the garage (1,008 sf) in comparison to the house (682 sf) The width of the garage from the street view, however, is similar to the house. The bulk of the garage will not be seen from the street. It is desirable from a community perspective to have property owners improve their properties with garages since the properties are then usually kept in better order. Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council approval or denial of this Conditional Use Permit application, requested by Tammy Bellamy, 2185 Pinewood Drive. • \DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCAS ES1531-9812185 PINE.PC I • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -s DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION • " 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 5511 0 _ParMt"�,e' 612-717-402 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information f^ O Name of Applicant to Yrta.ro.-6-(1.x,",r,m De.\'Cl,m Telephone <0 Address. al SS ?rAes•Jood f . -_._Fax .- Interest in Property(check appropriate box) da- Owner of Property:-- -- '7..'f7 t -J-.rr•',-a't Q v...-"F Contract for Deed Owner , >N 0 Lessee,Operator,Manager , ra tI Agreement to Purchase a Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address or General Location oZ I �� - (4't?c). � Legal Description PropertyIdentification#<Pnv t-j s- "n.3 y-3 . . . i #of Acres _� :,� . vf� �-rr •:r •• J Goriest Zoning — �i; -, _ � .w:�� _... _ . _ ,. -. •- ,. . Type of Application - a Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 _ _:. :_ _ a Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 a Major Subdivision - . _ - - •_ $250+$250 deposit* a Minor Subdivision $200 a Planned Unit Development(PUD) w __ . Refer to rezoning fees a PUD Amendment $350 _ Conditional Use Permit. _ - R-1, - t others$250 . •. _ a - Variance .. ___R-1, R- 100 all others$250 - a -Code Appeal. 5100 a Develop Review/Site Plan . SI 25/acre;min$125 max$750 a )Wetland Alteration Permit - - R-LR-2$150;all others$200 a - :_Wetland Buffer Permit _ R-I,R-2$25;all others$100 a _. Floodplain Permit $200 - a Other _ -- • *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, 411 research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be refunded to the applicant within thirty(30)days after consideration of the application is completed. • Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View. Mt Development Application Page 2 Present Use of Property ❑ Undeveloped/Vacant Single Family Dwelling • ❑ Duplex Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling ❑ Business/Commercial Establishment a Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) Property Classification ❑ Abstract ❑ Torrens 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. "3`5:.1`= -, Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant(typed/printed) Signature of Property Owner '`^a�U,{�R .Name of PropertyOwner(typed/printed) _ • Address of Owner _. - • a0� Ma u A:le;5 S V 1Gc4 vh. t {-Z :.. Phone Number of Owner b)� 1 czb • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY • Date of Submittal 7—/o — Date of Acceptance .• .. Assigned to: L H s: Planning Case No. - • 3'31— g 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: . . .Account* Check# Receipt# Application:. ,lt ?5 .. 973 Sr 5 433 9 Park Dedication: Deposits: Other • • Total: N:\DATA\GROUPSICOMDEVIFORMSIDEVAPP.FOR 1198 • 1 41 ca. ' 1.71. '041141311.04.141 c' c4 5661°1COLONIAL VILLAGE i • s`' --3 MOBILE HOME PARK lAid — NnN 07 -,e) M o O .- to ) N 1•1 742O to c4. th a' to M N NN N N N N N N N N 04N N N N N N HILLVIEN7 0 - 0 ? c0 03 O t0 0 N N CO o u. `r M N N O 0 a' co r‘a N N N N N N N N N N N N N O C O O 0 0 N N N N N N N N R to N CO CO 0 N t0 O T co 0 `r' M pf N 0 Ca' co n N 0 O coo N N DR NNNNNNNNNNN N N N N OAKWOOO ON N N N N N N N N N N N °f ® - PARK. K 5618 N in in oMNNN N N O Qr) r) .. . O oa: m � nN N N PFss1 NN N N N 1 i N N N N N N N N N N N N ' �qKAOOD 5606 Er D ngao 0 , . . DR c,NNNtrui 4. MN N- - mn p °,(1 N `-iii rN NIU N t0 O V' t0 O 0 0) CO CO n n5600 N N N N N NNN0 0 0 0Ig ^ CMgagster N N N N N N NN N N N N N N 5562 04 N NN N . 5556 CO a3 n N rn M 'n o, el n In 1 nu7 to d ) r) .- O 01 ao n nERR � _ oo o o ' 5550 2 2 n 2 oO Cill4Eillagn� _ NNN NNN N NN N NN cv NN N N � ONNN NN �N � DR N N • O t 0 N t0 tCO N 0 - O - Q n IN- N n C) ^ 00) one m a^N NU ^ O O a553EIN N NNN NN N NN N N N N N N N N N N lJ5532 5 PINEWOOD DR it:0: - • in N o " ^ o nePI Nr - rnrnanre)i M a ^5526 m o co o .r coN - 4- _ _ NNNm N to eh M N N N N N N N N N N N N 5520 NN N N NN N NN NN Nr) N t t . o; LIN " EU 5511 ® Pr 4 N ,ImV N 5 In 54975472 5503 5504 5499 P I N EWO 0 DIII in N f".1! . • N N N 5493 5493 5494 SCHOOL - 5500 5480 1 5479 5485 5486 5485 to R 5474 5473 5475 5478 5475 LI —4 5468 5467 .5 5467 Ilk I - 5462 5463 ® 406 5459 Q ��� Ilk }- 5445; b4b4 1 5455 • Ci�17 � �� _�_�� (n 0 0, cy' F- Q=. 5446 5447 Q `FSO A 5447 cn W. 5440 5441 Q in n to n to v5434 54335433 NNNN NN 5426 5425 5425 ELLEn � t8n .r 'I' . . 5420 5421 driii. •a. 5419 5414 N N N N I N N 5401. 5415 5414 � PI N a C 5413 ^ N Y 5406 5405 5406 N N N N N N 5405 N N N N N N N 1 II ;ON DRIVE .53- a- n _ _ ._. , r-�--., _---rte .5 ,, • Zoning Map Planning Case 532-98 Applicant: Tammy Bellamy N4 Location: 2185 Pinewood Drive . Design Works (R), Knox Lum`- 'r, , # 212, Phone # 483-541) Thu Jul 09 16:48:59 19980 ` The materials in this garage will cost $3867.96 This Price does not i Plan ID: CQ6282 Drawing: 3-Dimensional View . - - . fi . !6 I �- .1f:=. mss =7 :- . r .` r4,,, 0 ! : f. 1t0•Si _fR i r t r µ: . tJ1IiJ ' /r,% ir i r r 2::: I YYY • I�P-4vim �----- ----- * Ask For A Construction Detail Sheet Before You Begin Your Project • resign Works (R), Knox Luml' 'r, , # 212, Phone # 483-5411 Chu Jul 09 16:48:59 1998❑ ?Ian ID: CQ6282 Drawing: Plan View • 24' 1 ii i i. N I • I • • t\ • --7-1..n,\I-ny &-Ack.Yr‘\•A ,r9-15- ?‘'llei,;4:08 Or. i ...,...... .....LTIL.... ..:2Dr-\._ ... .,-,)'( •—... --.2— _ \ i • . 1 — • — — -- . 1. .. • I... ... - — —, ( .-- • .- - •• t ••"' I /çy .. s . . . . . •4 1 . .. . . , -- --- • r r , a---- --- (1 .,f....-1 't'-..e._C .r.Tar... I.. . .—'' ——---" -- / t -...., i '411 • • . .,. .. 114,,-47:6 1 1 . •6 1- I . i L' Q... 1‘ .... . _ 1--t..j • Lit') 0 a II v••••`4 1 i . . -a_ -.._ \ . . 1 N ‹/TPA. --> v.?.. . t \ t 1 . ...,...: 1 ._ 1 1 • 1 E • v ‘ 1 , • .. ' I -,- , -• \ ‘41 iS —T.j !I -: 1 11 ,55 I ..5 , i. .1 I. I .1 i CA .1 i .,1.. r-----1 ; 0 ....\.v....,...? . .. . ..• . . . • • _.--...-- .. )('.I I . Sze kA.1-r <-) -Y c,-,-(;,;.-1 •Dr: p(10p o ed a1 i r I 1 1 • 5 . . 'J 44.• :--------T pill 1 -` I r ' Cr I'".7) • III � _ ,, ,_ _ I ' ! '� �" ` IV .ti V i 1 1 I I.1 I,; •I 1 oxS . f.-t ( ( i al ism 1 I 01, ® N El I ,> •LI 0 • a) 0 O 1 . Q ® L W 0 TA •L ■ }eeJ;s iCouin0 I .. .. .................. .........cr ..... ............ 0 ($.1,.) _ I I 111 ar . . , 6 CL ,o0 U ad) MR rift,' a) ce.,_ •_ c as,N to Ilia LO •• L0 O Si c N O ›%• of41 0 1 lei a U • • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: August 19, 1998 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 532-98 Request: Development Review Applicant: Adolfson and Peterson Construction and Setter, Leach& Lindstrom for SYSCO FOODS Location: 2400 County Road J PIN Nos.: 05-30-23-22-0005 Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Sysco Addition Zoning/Land Use: PUD/Existing Food Service and Distribution Facility • Applicable Regulations: • Development Review: Section 1006.06 requires that all commercial and industrial development within the City be subject to review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. • Setbacks: Section 1104.01 establishes the principal building and parking lot setbacks. These will be addressed in the analysis section of this report. Summary: The applicant, Adolfson & Peterson, representing Sysco Foods, has applied for a development review to expand their existing facility located at 2400 County Road J. The expansion will add approximately 106,000 square feet of space to the building and 152,500 square feet of parking area for trucks and cars. The additions to the building will increase freezer space by 43,500 sf, cooler space by 25,500 sf, dry goods space by 16,100 sf and then an additional 21,500 sf for offices. Other facets of this expansion include an expansion of the access driveway leading back to rear of the building, relocation of the will-call area, construction of additional auto parking at the northeast corner of the site and additional truck parking along the west side of the property. • SYSCO Foods Expansion Planning Case 532-98 August 19, 1998 Page 2 Discussion: Drainage and Soil Suitability At the time this report was written, staff had not yet received a copy of the drainage plan prepared for the Sysco site. It is our understanding, however, that when the development was constructed in 1988, the ponding was sized to accommodate the maximum planned buildout. I verified that this was the case with SEH and also with Rice Creek Watershed District, who indicated that because of revised standards and other drainage requirements, a new watershed district permit would need to be obtained. Staff has not yet received a copy of the drainage plan, although we have received a copy of the drainage calculations, which were sent to the City Engineer for review. With regard to soil suitability, it is staff's understanding that the soils are reasonably suited for the planned expansion, however the applicant will be providing information to the City to supporty this. Setbacks: The plans provided to staff, date stamped 8/14/98, do not explicitly show setbacks and thus have been estimated by staff. Because of this, we have requested a confirmation of all setback • distances from the applicant and will report to the Planning Commission if they are different from our estimates. The current conditions plan show the front setback for the Sysco facility to be 30 feet, while the setback for parking lot appears to be zero feet. It is proposed that the parking lot expansion will maintain the same zero setback. The existing setback for the access drive along the east side of the property begins at 50 feet, then narrows to a zero setback, gradually increasing to 25 feet before ending at approximately 18 feet. The proposal shows the access drive extending the zero setback for approximately 300 feet. The truck parking at the rear of the property currently ranges from 15 to 20 feet, which is shown to be decreased by 10 feet. The new truck parking along the western edge is shown with a 10 foot setback. Staff is concerned about the reduced and zero setbacks present in the proposed expansion plans. The City may, however, allow these setbacks in conjunction with the development plan because of Sysco's PUD zoning status, which allows for deviations from the City's setback requirements. It appears from the plans that the zero setback status is a present condition which, by virtue of its existence, has received City approval in the past. The reduced setback toward the rear of the property are less of a concern, as this area borders Highway 118 and is shielded from view by the noise barricades. The reduced setback along the eastern edge of the property is of a concern not because of the adjacent property owner, but rather because of the possible environmental impact to the wetlands. To protect against possible degradation of the wetlands, staff would recommend that the access drive maintain a minimum ten foot setback along the property's entire eastern edge. This would result in the drive aisle being narrowed to forty feet in one area unless it could • be shifted to the west a compensating distance. SYSCO Foods Expansion Planning Case 532-98 • August 19, 1998 Page 3 Elimination of Open Space: Staff has examined the original PUD documentation, site plans and resolutions in an effort to determine what development restraints, covenants or restrictions might apply to the present expansion. With the exception of car dealerships and multiple-family housing, there are no provisions within the Code that require a development to have a certain amount of greenspace. The City Code, in Section 1120.02, Subdivision 3, states only that a PUD provide a"sufficient" amount of open space. The proposal presented by Sysco utilizes most of the remaining greenspace on the site, with the balance set aside as future expansion area. The site plans also show that Lot 1, Block 1, of the Sysco Addition, the triangular area west of the Sysco development, is slated for future parking. Parking and Access: There are approximately 362 parking stalls present on the Sysco property which had been approved for the site with its initial development and expansion in 1995. The current proposal would bring this total up to 444. Truck parking will also increase by 53 slots, bringing the truck • capacity up to 104 stalls. The access drive servicing the facility is proposed to be widened to 50 feet, which will better accommodate two-way truck traffic. The access is currently 50 feet wide where it intersects with County Road J, but narrows to only 25 feet along the east side of the property. Other Issues: • Landscaping: The applicant does not intend to provide any landscaping with this project, other than the landscaping that will be displaced as a result of the proposed expansion, which will be relocated and/or replaced. • Public Safety: While not a component of this project, the intersection at Xylite Street and County Road J (with the Sysco access being the fourth leg of the intersection) will be improved with a full-movement traffic signal. The City of Mounds View and Sysco are sharing in the cost of this improvement with the City of Blaine. • Utilities: The expansion areas will not generate a need for any additional utilities. • SYSCO Foods Expansion Planning Case 532-98 August 19, 1998 • Page 4 Recommendation: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 555-98, a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of a development review for the Sysco Foods operation located at 2400 County Road J, with stipulations as noted and amendments as needed. jelALLQIF--0Q.1-C-k&L- James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES1532-98\532-98.PC 1 - 741 ©UMW: CONMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Z401 Highway 10, Mounds View MN 55112 •r.m.44` 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant Adolfson & Peterson Construction Telephone (612) 544-1561 Address 6701 West 23rd Street Fax (612) 525-2333 Minneapolis Minnesota 55426 Interest in Property(check appropriate.box) • ❑ Owner of Property __ a ': Contract for Deed Owner- • ❑ Lessee,Operator,Manager = ❑ Agreement to Purchase Other(explain) Design/Build Contractor for Expansions and Renovations Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal • Address or General Location 2400 County Road J, Mounds View Legal Description . -- N 1/2, NW 1/4 of Section 5, T30 R23 Property Identification#(PIN#) 05302322005 #of Acres - 23.933 Current Zoning Planned Unit Development . Type of Application • ❑ Comprehensive PIan Amendment $250 • a Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 ❑ Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* ❑ Minor Subdivision S200 ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) • Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment $350 • ❑ Conditional Use Permit R-I, R-2$75;all others$250 ❑ Variance — R-1, R-2 S100 all others S250 Code Appy $100 4 Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750 Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;ail others$200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit • - - __ . R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 ❑ Floodplain Permit $200 ❑ Other shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, • *Deposits research or preparation of materials associated with this application. The applicant shall be responsible for all reasonable incurred costs in excess of the initial deposit amount. Any portion of the deposit not spent or encumbered shall be retimded to the applicant within thirty(30)days atter consideration of the application is completed. Please complete the reverse side of this application. City of Mounds View, MN Development Application Page 2 Present Use of Property a Undeveloped/Vacant ❑ Single Family Dwelling ❑ Duplex/Two Family Dwelling ❑ Multi-family Dwelling • Business/Commercial Establishment ❑ Industrial Establishment ❑ Other(explain) Property Classification Abstract tI Torrens Description of Proposal Expansions (Cooler, Freezer, Cold Dock, Dry Warehouse with dock, Office Space and Parking Areas) and renovations (Office Area and Dry Warehouse) for a food service distribution facility. Site improvements include new automobile parking (84 cars) and truck parking (54 trucks) along with widening existing truck lane to facilitate 2-way traffice 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) Adolfson"-& Peterson Construction Signature of Property Owner Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) Svsco Food Services of Minnesota, Inc. - Address of Owner _. - = -2400 County`Road J • Mounds View. Minnesota 55112— Phone Number of Owner (612) 587-7516 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal 7-3/ -9 - - - - Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. -3Z..-.Q1 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account# Check# • Receipt# Application: 0750 - /0d-3'f/ J -5441€Scd Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: • Total: • NADATA1GROUPSICOMDEVTOniS1DEVAPP.FOR Ugg — . — . . _ .._ ., — . -7D .—_ . . _ . . _ . . -- Q N SYSCOiligair ZEP FOODS 8490 l PUQx 8450 3'4).- A . BRIDGES. 8425 TECH. PARK , 8415 8408 �\ '—' 8400 N • 8405 8400 8395 8388 8385 8384 CC 8375 8378 . p U 8365 8360 8325 8290 8321 • .. :PP 8315 8340 A66GOLF 8305 8330 ., COURSE 8295 8310 di 8273 AR DANt W. 8267 8300 PARK ,...---7"--\-\' . - 8255 8280 ` 5 8260 8283 N N N 8250 8271MIL C 8247 Q N c0IF N0 to N N N 8230 8239 •••........ ... :-.::..:....: ....__ 8225 ` �`; 8224 8212 82,7 ■ ! /7 8206 Q m 8205 N 8'200 PRYN N N N N N N M 8150 : :: :::::............ LAPORT DR O N T N N N N c0 v 1 H140 $145'11.1 8140 Q O N N N C4 N N M M M M rn N •- SL- NN N N • •• 8135 8130 0 8141 8134 8132 8121 8126 8123 8120 8121 812( •` •:: CO i n O1 p p o o n N 1... v < PI M N p s :. N N N N 8100 8101 N v� �n n��� 8110 W 8101 v v M P, ',13 M M M ;.4-> g ,53 M • N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 ROAD l i0 C0 0 8085 i 8086 8085 I- ti a 8080 8085 180881 8095ii: aQ ` co N o N N N N ` N N N ^ ^ N �, C N N N M N N N M 8072 Rm� ( Roan 8081 0 ,S . • Zoning Map Planning Case 532-98 Applicant: SYSCO Foods N4 Location: 2400 County Road J MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 555-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE SYSCO FOODS FACILITY, 2400 COUNTY ROAD J; PLANNING CASE NO. 532-98 WHEREAS, Sysco Foods has requested City approval to expand its facility at 2400 County Road J, property zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2, SYSCO Addition WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application,dated 3/5/98 • 2. Zoning and Location Map 4. Site Plans,dated July 20 and August 14, 1998 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plans dated 7/20/98 and 8/14/98 conform to the requirements of Chapter 1120, Planned Unit Developments District, with revisions as noted in the stipulations; and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the proposed drainage plans and find them in conformance to watershed and local water management plan requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of a development review for Sysco Foods to expand their food distribution and warehouse facility as shown on site plans dated 7/20/98 and 8/14/98 subject to the following stipulations: 1. The site plans shall be revised to show all building dimensions; all building, parking lot and driveway setbacks; and revised to show a ten-foot setback for the access drive along the property's eastern border. 2 Before any permits are issued for this development, the applicant shall obtain a Rice Creek Watershed District permit and enter into a development agreement with the City. • Planning Commission Resolution 555-98 Sysco Foods Expansion • August 19, 1998 Page 2 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 19th day of August, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DE VCASES\532-98\555-98PC.RES • i i • PROCEEDINGS OF'1'131+; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION '17IE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting July 15, 1998 Mounds 4Y City Hall 2401 Highway 10, . nds ; ew, MN 55112 1. Call to Order Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View Planning `Jmmissio •ecial f 5 _ or. 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commission- Brasa g BQ rLa:. (departed at 8:54 p.m.), Miller, Obert, and Stevenson. Members absent: Council Liaison Koopme '3A • • ,_ Also present: Community Developmen 'irector t ke; r Tanner Ericson;Economic • Development Coordinator Kevin C• �, Hous'�y spect•y teve Dorgan; and Recorder Dave Hix. 3. Cit' i s' Requests i c i mmen A s Aj f=.x ��,, of On The Agenda There -ns' re •mments on items not on the agenda. 4. Appro { € nfutes A. J , 99: ,v0:6:42,. B. "' a 17, 1998 ( ` f (1 • • \l_"• aemle/Stevenson to approve the Planning Commission June 3, 1998 I. lar) and June 17 98(Special)Meeting Minutes as amended. 6 Nays - 0 • to- --:.per'"� . 3.8 #. •• 5. Staff Reports/Information Items • A. Discussion Regarding Comprehensive Guide Plan - Land Use Element PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 • July 15, 1998 All Planning Commission Members acknowledged receipt of the City's current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map. Jopke told the Commission the Maps' color designations had bee pie•;-'"ted by the I- 35W Corridor Coalition in an attempt to standardize 1. d use4"'across the corridor. This process was intended to simplify the i`&33 uni s between all of the communities that are members of the "Coalite•0 ' e sugg- City of Mounds View return to its original approach of. .• gnating ' ft`•erti- to instead of dense as had been done on the Mapore t e ' ommissio n: density, g. The Land Use Map and the Zoning Map were co i! . .g ,.ne another in an attempt to bring out any inconsistencies that exist between t!!!,,-I'r4tr§Ffir From a land use perspective, it was determined that the Highwa '' 0 co }K . , . ea that needs the most attention and analysis as to how the av,•. land al. :a .•dor could be used. t:T 3fygr z `s t s •. Jopke asked the Commission to cons At • t $ Ss,-s to 1.,,f . use along the Highway 10 corridor: 1. Should the land bed• •ted fo fly.•ecific us4',. 2. Should the land be *s '` •th . case-by se basis? Obe stated it was bi coli ensus o Q m.1. ` at participated in the community forum pr.` zl hat Hi_ 041 ould bei main area of commercial development. The $ � • expr ,g! Aeeling t a'" ounty Road I should not be developed for co 14‘, A4 `�. -, he a.4 Peters•$ : S51., 3 .t the development of County Road I depended to a large e �: •n w {� � s� . _ 'borin communities of Shoreview, Blaine, and Arden Hills had • ed for dew g 7 gi; ; • their cities. Future development in the cities could impact ounds View's .: oad I as a through road to their cities. • Stevenson stat-gay hat the planning that is taking place by the City of Mounds View on the f Comprehens 'lan Update is a blueprint for the future. If the Planning Commission • cided e esignate the remaining residential properties along Highway 10 or County �A i epi 'usiness use, it would not mean that the home owners were being te asked to e from their homes. The redesignation would only go into affect Wand when the property changed ownership, he added. Peterson suggested that the City make a strong effort to change the Zoning Map to reflect the Comprehensive Land Use Map, particularly on the Highway 10 properties which are • "grossly out of sync." • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 July 15, 1998 Brasaemle expressed concern in regards to the tax implications that the people, whose property is now zoned residential, would be faced with if their zoning was changed to business use. The property tax would be based on a higher valued commer.4.a' use rather than a lower valued residential use. Miller suggested safeguarding the current residents F 'ase Zia•K,`,1irk, way 10 corridor. This would allow the City to rezone th i#-.perry for -. ............: .,. a and development as business or commercial. Peterson suggested establishing a 285 feet plus-i. . ,o. ; one on either sig s$ =3_ way 10-as the commercial corridor. The corridor wo om the east end of Highway 10 to the west end of Highway 10, he added. • Miller expressed concern in regards to co • , develo• E <.h of County Road H2, especially with the resistance that is,� , to the t'' yk« development. A lengthy discussion ensued in w _ the P1. tfs 4,:r;?-.(ogai;,,,,,,pi. Members drew in their proposed 285 foot setback on t a orth . $cx outh ;) ' 'ghway 10, going the full east/west length of the high f` sing t urrent ifrprehensive Land Use Map for the basis of their designation p,•io s'. s. : aemle s s ested that the last piece of residential property next to the Eve riangu ,4 aped •>i., erty needed to be included in the High ay 10 corrido • ercial d"4"jtAivli _ e also recommended that Town's Edge •T ..e desi i„.4.<9,1 - €� •strial, L` nal/Warehouse, or Mixed-Use PUD. '441 ` :gest- g the oven's Edge Terrace property as HC/IND PUD. The • resas ssi• d 'th the designation of HC/IND PUD for the Town's Edge Terrac ;-ff i 2.. B. PI .: g ; SEa Vaca”cy and Terms (Verbal Report) opke told the Cb-.$._T$li, mon that City staff had received, and subsequently lost, a list of potential Conuni •on candidates that would be added to the list that had already been discussed. In big of this fact, the selection of a candidate would have to be tabled in order to giv-r,, staff the time it needs to locate the missing list and add these names to •e list o idates being considered by the City to fill the vacancy on the planning • ''','-110,i1:4;?;''`n. Obert suggested that all applicants that are considered for the vacancy should be interviewed by the Planning Commission, including Liaison Koopmeiners, prior to selection by the Mayor and approval of the selection by City Council. The Commission • unanimously agreed with Obert's suggestion. PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 . July 15, 1998 C. Update on Overton Foyer Expansion at 2824 Woodale Drive Ericson told the Commission that the Overtons had not presented archite = - plans to the City when they applied for their variance. The applicants has ven •,w-oral presentation through their architect and this presentati'n was t p;.;06,m'•,m'••tion that the Commission used in making their decision to grant s s , 'an $• I t the addition to the home is taking place, the roof lines that had b •escribed >6er and in • character with the existing home, were not fittin!� with th :A act- f� •Ai ` `' 'stmt house or the neighborhood. Obert expressed concern that the City's developm €� ..-ments for this type of project didn't stipulate that an addition must fit in with t '•t-q :hborhood or blend in with • the existing house. • Ericson quoted from Section 1125 of th 4 Varian �g e variance would not be material detrimental to the purpose � ` , � ether a �`serty in the same zone." u; Brasaemle suggested that the Pl.., ` g Co.ft 'ssio `� he Code to require -.me architectural drawings on vn.(4� ��- appli :;;'ons ons that +me before the Commission. • Ericson quoted from Co. . All pre . .ed and y al, commercial, and residential deve•e ments and e n Io ns of e s, except developments where public ut' a d stree :. —t eviously'isi#0+" ed and the erection of no more than two sr gv,vt s gle- • $iii S;i5§,p- - H gs are p : ed must be reviewed by the City." This sta d m. ental review necessary for the type of project that the Overto Fill ang con $� Jo ' gge 1,F W =-..ing a code requirement that ties existing conditions to the posed new a--.- t £ Brasaemle sugg- d erbiage a follows: "Any expansion of an existing facility that requires a vari.:.-- has to go through a development review." ,'eterso. ; ' d: "Politically and historically the City is stuck with letting people do • ey want to do, appearancewise." • Ericson suggested getting the Council's feedback on the issue. Have them make a judgement as to whether or not the Code language is acceptable or Wit needs to be amended to try to solve this type of problem. 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner's Reports • PLANMNG COMMISSION Page 5 • July 15, 1998 No reports were considered. 7. Adjournment MOTION/SECOND: Brasaemle/ Obert to adjourn the meeti s There being no further business before the Planning Co g‘•. .ion Chai R, ... •n adjourn=,' the meeting at 9:30 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned #$ st ..enda Session) Respectfully submitted, • bf.c.• Raw y:. 6s ax,: Rick Jopke S . Community Development Director u�P r;t • • • • 9 w y: .. >• ....n.:,.. • • KS : • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Subject: Mermaid Parking Lot Problems Date: Meeting of August 19, 1998 Last week, it came to staffs attention that the plans approved for the Mermaids bowling expansion had some errors: There appears to be a seven-foot descrepancy between what the plans show and what is actually out there with regard to building location and the north property line. The result of this is that there is not enough room for the parking lot as it was shown on th plans to be built. One full row of parking will fit with a drive aisle, but not two. Before the expansion, there were 515 parking spaces on the property. After the expansion, a total of 505 spaces would be available, assuming that all of the spaces could be built. Because of the measurement error, only 25 of the 38 spaces north of the building can be built, using the north • property line for parallel parking and 90 degree parking adjacent to the building. While this is a net reduction of another 13 spaces, the final total of parking provided would still be more than what is required. (Attached is the second page from the Council staff report which shows the parking requirements for the site.) The applicant is proposing to expand the parking north of the building so that a full two rows with a drive aisle between them can be constructed, which requires a minimum 60 feet, curb to curb, not considering any setbacks. What is available, from sidewalk to property line, is 55 feet at the building's northeast corner, increasing to 64 feet at the northwest corner. The applicant, on the attached lot survey and parking proposal, is to encroach five feet beyond the property line into the • - - - - . - . . . . -- : .. . :.•-- - • •._ . . • ..p • . - • site, promoting a safer traffic circulation between the two properties and also to encourage a shared parking arrangement between the two uses. A formal application has not yet been made; the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the options and give direction to staff as well as the applicant as to how to proceed. Staff will present it's prefered course of action at the meeting. • James Ericson, Planning Associate C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCSUERICSON\MERMAID.MEM LOCATION SURVEY For: The MERMAID. - , Property Line and adjoining parking 't between The Mermaid and Perkins in Mounds View, Minnesota . \ PERKINS - , • Gm 92.0 V y 0ti 1 �"9 I Ne In I 10.;.% LI North Lot Line I / EXISTING CONCRETE CURB Oe °�` j37 ? ► i 1 ti n i c I n - y,-.. , ' . .• ... j I \ nANKING LOT "-, 1 . .1 , i � .1 1 _ a. 1 1 ,• . -J • —56t ;165 3 3 THE MERMAID .. I i • J Scale 1"= 60' Job No. 98491LS Drwg By BAG I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my . 5. QuD 4 SONS, INC direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws LAND fiUR1/EYORS of the State of Minnesota E. G. RUD & SONS, INC 91B0 LEXINGTON AVE_ NO. ��� CIRCLE PNES, MINNESOTA Date 8-/S-96 _Registration No 98478 5501 4-3625 TEL. 186-6566 L Mermaid Entertainment Center Planning Case 523-98 May 11, 1998 Page 2 • Parking Lot Setbacks • Front (Highway 10): 30 feet 18 feet No • Front (County H): 30 feet 75 feet Yes • Side (Perkins): 10 feet 0 feet No • Side (Business Park): 10 feet 0 feet No Drainage: The impervious surface on this site takes up nearly 100 percent of the area. The proposed addition adds 7,226 square feet of building area to the site, yet replaces an equal amount of parking area. The net effect is that no additional run-off is expected as a result of this development. Even so, the Rice Creek Watershed District will need to review this development proposal and issue a watershed permit before construction can begin. Parking: With the additional eight bowling lanes, the parking ratios and counts as required in the City Code, Section 1121.13 for bowling alleys and the other on-sites uses would be as follows: Bowling Alleys: 5 spaces per alley 32 lanes = 160 spaces Dining and Lounge: 1 space per 40 s.f. 12,228 s.f. = 306 spaces Kitchen area: 1 space per 80 s.f. 516 s.f. = 7 spaces Office: 3 spaces plus 1 per 175 s.f 930 s.f. = 9 spaces Total required: _ 482 spaces Staff counted the stalls present on the site and came up with a total of 515 spaces, 18 of which are being used temporarily for the outdoor volleyball court. Thus, at present, the site is overp_arked according to the Code requirements. With the •ro•osed a •ansion there would be 505 s'aces • the site, a net reduction of ten spaces. This figure is still more than what would be required with the ei t additional lanes. The plan, however, shows the stalls at 9 foot by 18 foot dimensions, instead of the Code-required 9 by 20 foot dimension. The shorter, 9 by 18 parking stalls have been allowed only by the City for perimeter parking where an overhang of the car into greenspace may occur. The Planning Commission and Staff concurred that the sub-standard stalls (9 by 18 feet) would be acceptable so as to be consistent with those stall preexisting. The other issue with regard to the parking as shown on the site plan is the reduced setback from the north and west property lines. The parking areas are shown to be at the property line instead of set back by the required 10 feet. The existing parking lot setback along the western property line is five feet. If the parking were to be constructed according to the plans provided, as much as two feet of some vehicles would be extending into the neighboring property. • Staff would recommend that the site plan be redrawn to (1) show 45 degree angled parking around the proposed addition which would allow for the continuation of the five-foot parking lot --- \ ' 24:6 1:' 11\-\ \-.\\\.\__ 'N \\ \ __\..\ . \\ \\-.4 l\ .\ l , M1N• ` ON k� • 1 �+��e _ ; r 41Mr01 , r— /.1,... �,tai .:''',7'.',,....717///://:;/'-''. y t'`-��` ,, I 2 ,��'`. . 'i P.7..." ...1611:9 ...:, ;////7/ ir-/1/7,/://.'/ ,i:.(,., I.7VIL - - ' =1-11 %LYS' i p. • . i 4 ` EX Ti Wel ;tJ 1 1 J' NJ ti ry\ NI V .n- \ NW1. i -r ,� , \ ... , v . „.,.. ,,, .., , ,>,- ; ,1 al in l si>, J -.......--J I r z.O i •� 1 O >z .