The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-02-1999 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION 1111 JUNE 2, 1999 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING,PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approve Minutes: a. May 5, 1999 5. Planning Case No.553-99 Property Involved: 7386 Parkview Terrace Consideration of a variance request for a reduced side yard setback for a three-season porch. Applicant: Mike& Sandy Leon • 6. Planning Case No.555-99 Property Involved: 7623-7629 Woodlawn Drive Consideration of a development review request for a four-unit residential rental dwelling Applicant: PMJ Group (Mike Juaire) 7. Staff Reports/Items of Information a. Silver View Park Trail Paving Plan b. Previous Council Action 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 9. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AGENDA SESSION AGENDA all1. Review Minutes -- May 19, 1999 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1999\6-2-99.REG • REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Meeting Date: June 2, 1999 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 553-99 Applicant: Michael& Sandy Leon Request: The applicant is requesting a reduced side yard setback to allow for a living space addition in place of an existing deck Location: 7386 Parkview Terrace PIN No. 07-30-23-13-0056 Zoning/Land Use: R-1, Single Family Residential/ Single Family Dwelling Applicable Regulations: Section 1104.01, Subd. 3, regarding Setbacks: All principal structures shall have a • setback from sideyard lot lines of at least ten feet. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in its review of variances. Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map Surveyor's Certificate Proposed Porch Plan Proposed Porch Elevation Letter from the Contractor Letter from Affected Neighbor at 7390 Parkview Terrace Background: The applicants, Mike and Sandy Leon, are requesting a variance from the required ten-foot side yard setback established for principal buildings and living space therein. They would like to replace an existing 10 x 12 square-foot deck with a three-season living space addition of the same size in the same location. The deck, which has existed since the construction of the house, is five feet from the north side of the property. The subject property is located in the Silver Lake Woods single family home development at the northeast corner of County Road H2 and Silver • Lake Road and is only 9,150 square feet in area. This request was first heard at the May 19, 1999 Commission meeting, and after much discussion, staff was directed to explore in greater detail possible language addressing each of the standard criteria for granting a variance. Leon Variance June 2, 1999 Page 2 Analysis: • As the Planning Commission is aware, in order to grant a variance, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property which makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or even restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. There was much discussion regarding these seven criteria at the last meeting, and based upon that discussion, staff has drafted language that relates to the criteria in Resolution 550-99, a resolution which approves the Leons' variance request. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. 7386 Parkview Terrace is a substandard lot--its area comprises only 9,150 square feet, a condition the current owners had no part in or control over. The lot was allowed as part of the Silver Lake Woods Second Addition, which replatted a section of larger R-2 zoned lots to smaller R-1 zoned lots. The smaller lot size in and of itself creates practical difficulties in maintaining a typical home. It was not the City's intent in approving this subdivision to limit the size of a house that could be built. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. Porches and other living space additions are a common feature in this district and serve as a physical improvement to properties. Other properties in this district typically are able to make these types of improvements without the need for variances. However, because the subject property is substandard, it would be unreasonable to assume that the same size house could be built and expanded upon without a comparable reduction in the setback requirements. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The variance request is the result of two factors over which the applicants had no control. The house was constructed on the substandard lot in such a way that wasted five feet of space alongside the garage. The side-yard setback for garages attached to principal structures is five feet, yet the garage is set back ten feet. Had the house been constructed so as to take advantage of this additional five feet alongside the garage, a variance would Leon Variance June 2, 1999 • Page 3 not have been necessary as there would have been adequate room to allow for a living space addition on the north side of the property. The other factor contributing to a need for a variance is that the internal configuration of the home is atypical in that the floor plan allows for a living space addition only off the north side of the house. There is only bedroom space off the rear of the home, the most logical place for these types of additions. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting a variance to allow a three-season porch or other type of living space addition would not be a special privilege--most properties in this district either have similar types of additions or have the space to construct such additions. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship._ Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The property owners wish to replace an existing deck with the enclosed porch. If the porch were to be constructed observing the proper setbacks, it would only be seven feet deep--not enough room for a table and chairs. The five foot variance is the minimum • variance that would alleviate the hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements and factors beyond their control. Granting this variance for a living space addition would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other .ro.ert in the same zone g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. A living space addition of such a limited size(120 square feet) at the reduced side yard setback would'not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. According to the City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the • granting of a variance. It appears to staff that in this case a hardship does exist, and as such, if the Planning Commission were to concur, a variance could be granted to allow the applicants to construct a living space addition five feet from the north property line. Leon Variance June 2, 1999 Page 4 • Recommendation: If it is the Commission's desire to approve a variance for Mike and Sandy Leon to allow a five- foot side yard setback for a 120 square-foot living space addition at 7386 Parkview Terrace, staff has prepared Resolution No. 579-99 to accomplish this. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\553-99\LEON2.RPT • • CMr CF . C:',Ain APS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT III „-,..; ,.. - , t,:::.„,st DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION '`'" ighway 10, Mounds View MN S5I12 o"el%-Parener,N;As 612-717-4020 612-784-3462 -FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information Name of Applicant Aici IS-alliy, Zecm Telephone((9/.L.) '780 34(`11 Address 9.3 26 44.0 7e,22cvc.Q_ Fax /ild 14- GL-6(//:-.0‘./ Interest in Property(check appropriate box) XOwner of Property a Contract for Deed Owner O Lessee,Operator,Manager ❑ Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the filing of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal • 1-13 Address or General Location % PdA l j)V.J V l Legal Description /-o1 (t9 81I, I Si'I V e L Woo4 Property Identification#(PIN#) Or? -30 — X 3 -13- 405-G Y #of Acres Current Zoning Type of Application O Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 ❑ Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 O Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* o Minor Subdivision $200 ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment $350 ❑ Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 Variance:2 R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 ❑ Code Appeal $100 ❑ Develop Review/Site Plan $125/acre;min$125 max$750 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit R-1,R-2$150;all others$200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-1,R-2$25;all others$100 ❑ Floodplain Permit $200 ❑ Other *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, • 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 ager 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 ❑ UndevelopedNacant 'A Single Family Dwelling III a Duplex/Two Family Dwelling a Multi-family Dwelling a Business/Commercial Establishment a Industrial Establishment o Other(explain) Property Classification 0 Abstract a Tocrens 1 Descript'on of P oposal 1 ail'34 0 1e'2. /0,4)2- illyillye-Y/f„// ' 4 (/0',YY/Z J 7) Af.., 04-i ' St'1 OM a A w• / ,'a& a / k. s�,,, - r `z• . 7-1, . . _ s sel) J0/� / )Lr, /iivl , a1N i„c ti to o- �� a, vaa f en. it boi. et . rm,ec�, (n)l'Hfl ct .15-"”' S/�4.fuel iJ ' c.� 9-Acm. p26A.cl? i ivt. BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVIDED""IS��TRUE�E AND ACCURATE. . Signature of Applicant / J();1�`� C __Steri`'. Name of Applicant(typed/printed) n„,A, e rr,,,„ iI0 V Signature of Property Owner ift- A `-YP\,i. Name of Property Owner(typed/printed) Ai At ' St4aLe o'J • Address of Owner 7s-.8 gq e U r' T...P-4_41,c t • A otM.tis. v,-e.,.tr— &J/ 6 33--862/( ll �33...y�� Phone Number of Owner C6/ZJ 7 8(7 -3405 (,sf> cf:fr #**PP%) t/12,11 i /11‘,2 /9-11,9 ****************************************************************** ****.* ** *******.r******** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal ii_,k/ 9 / Date of Acceptance Assigned to: Planning Case No. SS 3 •4 el 60-day Limit 120-day limit Fees Paid: Account# Check# Receipt# Application: /0 0 . 00 fav 3 4 E6. _Ito/a 0 1 e1 a'i Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: III N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\FORMS\DEVAPP.FOR 1/98 7759 ///U 7749 7768atom NMI •v y1 „o: ..- v 77391 7729 'V 7761 7750 7731 7730 7 5 • s, 7729 7728 7723 7801 411 7755 7730 7721 7720 �_ -I B-2 p 7719 7718 7745 7710 7711 • Y - 771E 7715 �o m an in u•oi ini noo —� 7709 7711) 7711 LI 770E ° ..._ .. .N N t�N ti � 7692 All N 7692 7685 N 7690 • PVA a _ *7111 E �,MAE n M rn u> \ t.3.-rn n v) _. t 4.• ■ nnm0 .- .eeoin an 2553 O tM°^- to13 3. NNNN r) NNNNN 2551 L1 ONO 7670 7863 U-I o N re N N N 2549 p 766 7660 Y --• 2547 2545 _ 7644 7653 g o. B-3 `O'? B-4 2541 N ti 2539 ' 7534 7635ini N 2537 7620. •� yeP , 7600 7601 7600 SILVER VIEWL.... :� h D 7588 7575 r ° n. N or B �y� PARK N.5 n o :s 5 7584 p 7565 N« N • T,n M 5 7572 S R-2 m z 2°,`°o NI B- 5 �. 7555 7552 J a O ro N //,'� 7560 . 7550 an. n°N n°N o co p: rJ N N N� to iiigM Pr N ±,M�tO �Ot° rt°.- NDN d' l ig R M 7532 co •40. N,.ncsl N N 17 N z.-4- p`o N �Y N RI DRIVEN 752 7530 CO o N•'� N . ! N:N N 1123111 ® .- .. �!'o/�i.+ %I. 0 O iO'•.N _ . 3 7501 771 : rrr � m 201'2 � N� 749' ................. N O N N�"tD 0 0 to c0 N ................... csi BRON >-- F 7451 7456 ow co 7444trt. o w N N cL N :4:.'.•::::::.�:L:l :1^.:L';.::::�5':."::.x::5'1:::::;:V:.S.Y:.. F w 7415 7442bli P ........ 1: p 7409 taI ZOO 7440 I ..—' V, .rDjil mi, :- 7405 7408 67.1 aA 7 L N n • 7395 -..—.__ 7400 f�•'• n i1) �tir7329 1 r . Mill 7390 I N ( •)„ co- - � H•ILir", 4 , CO CO inalia 7350 � • `(�f�11Ia1@p1t �111:1� .. Ili: o327 � • N CO n CO 325 N N N 377 '. R-4 co ab fifl 7310 /Lattug • ...---..,..- 315 w ^•;ii;::::•- m toIN N ' ts, in e :. R-2 H dNo,....• O !)51:11 a1) d m a1) 7295 M N ....n.. in° NO N5278 5279 5278mEo,o,oEom mN N NN7286 B—� �� Nn N NNNNN N .181 5272 5273 . 5272 0,' ,0 n M rn an n M 0 In 518; 5266 5267 m m CO m m C m m cO fO N° N 6 5266 N N N N N N N N N N NN e 5260 5261 LOUISA AVE p Cc 51785177 p `7. a m 1P Eo I vi 8-, a,i N w d• O O7237 7250 p p5254 525E Q c c p m EMo m EMo ,No m G m G C ONNNNNNNNNNNN5176 517E j 5248 52411X r, rnw n •'r o, .n .- a Z p 7225 72 -c7—:— w S m m2mm "N° mGGmw7215 5174 -p 5242 5243 N N N N N N N N N N N N Q.Its 517, CLEARVIEW AVE CD 5237 0 u, N 'm •d• OEo N- w � Oco7191 l 5172 5171 523_ 6!_ InsF * MMM N N : R-4 . 5230 5231 523C N N N N N 1 N N N N N N N 71801 E a d M r) N N N n M O'D O b �I 7151 5170 5169 5224 522 3224 Eo ro m ro 2 m m G G 8 Eo 8 2 I 'n 1 ' 5168 5167 5221 N N N_ N N N N N N N N N N N N N ^� (fMp�- N I n Z 5218— _ RIDGE 7111 co N N N INI cN co co O 5166 5165 5217 5212 ' `O N O O O al Fn vi u0i In La 5212 521 N 521.. 5212 N M N O o ��n _� DR f 51645163dY 5208 5211 5206 5207 Z 5206 5207 5206' 81 in - 52C I -L---1 M 1 N 1 1 0 1-..,..d Ft a9c,c,0 5205 i° 1 I -- 411° Zoning Map Planning Case 553-99 Applicant: Mike & Sandy Leon Location: 7386 Parkview Terrace N4 ••• 98.59 •.•.t' 98.59 \ • am 1D 3 w off` w � 1 O --,„ --- -----:--- -"-:- a,) (1)� U ' , 0.4( N "i .0. �- ��„ . . 14.3 �/ . .- . - 3. t4.0,.:,cv 84.41 ‘\ --... : 1� 1 �PRAI� � .� `_ RIVE! d ; 2C4 (� ?' -;E _ Al N C4.9)o ; v 5i I\kg SZ .24` ""/9,74 ;,, Ilz/ "._0 ' WM. 7 .! ;.39.9 \', -a,,3.5_/ $b'1 I Ij'��, �a• I 16.5 -- h a� a 23 '.r 949 " I I ( ° i a °° M .:g443 92.6:- I O (rr) 4 "' U� (40 I h ta 0ab) ;:.zg.0 9' ° ('0 fr6.c7' 64 118 1. (,r) v F•.,, - 6 7c�) ti 49- 6.- .actio '� t33.3• ler,b in ,N-loo r 1i. z 60 *5 - I /OS so- o o.2a Rk�E �' Ci :+' I °PARK . aia0 (,4 ) v VIEW 90 4.5 i .�o za' H ` Ao.56 60 0 (0940 ,% 64 -m 0 �. i k Ig.o P 3 4 2 N 1 O 2 mit , 0� h -1 O . W 6� OIN - 4 118.06 9781 05- - 70 1 S O .(�5) 'O ai (4.4-) •- ..- 4 (�•S s Z t 0.93. /43v 1 S r 4 ' N 9 8 7 y c • ta 94 ^ . RIOS.1" ` K �w6 "k a. 160'. • • 1 .Ia 9 �� - 9R. 9493 (!�`b •-�.Z3 1 01-3i ;o 9 ° 11 - _ , 1 h 8 I .41 eHODGES LANE ,p G' z6/ . a 1 z4.9 it 9 j05 iA3 7/.0,9 (17)6 4 I h 7�53) h 0 (4a) c `64). O 1442 k .. /j'Zs.. �I R t� I Q ` 1 . 2- a 3 °t `j h .ins . ia • /Z6.O,r� 0 \ �` ii ( 4 6(ri) a I '�"6-a) 44) �3) a /S�c t r'A 6 k 5 4 M "0) 40 --d' 1CSI• N Le sea �• • . : 3 CO i ,�C,, 2 • v C ) $ "1 ' , 82 7- l 1.71 itili - - I '6 • �9 f,� O 0 4` (20) o - 8 E 1110 TER 4 k zoa.�30) co 1 I (50) s 3 1 -.4 Y �S b 1Les �, 4 49 ,� 3.63 4 (22) 109,9 1 P*% C ) . (1 )(11 C ) ,38� 131.4'5 9..34 9C !00 115:06 109.94• 2OO.a 33 i :7 ( 420 7 en M COUNTY' � �} - • Plat Map Planning Case 553-99 7 Applicant: Mike & Sandy Leon N Location: 7386 Parkview Terrace CALVIN H. HEDLUND 7726 MORGAN AVE. SO. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN: 551123 L�Surwyor Civil Engineer PHONE NO. 866-2523.1,1?ccheir Siirvcqor's Certificate most JOB NO. /003'2 SURVEY FOR: MARVIN II. ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO. DESCRIBED AS: Lot 10, Block 1, SILVER LAKE WOODS 2ND ADDITION, City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota reserving the drainage and utility easements as shown on the record plat thereof. • _ -,3:-67,,, —.. ._� -24- -- - - -T-i • G/�%4'47!/ . .9et7 �r ._-- ql ,lf� ,......,.....; ...... , , .,, .... , , 7::111:),It‘, 0 iTt7.__ __ , de V \O .v r‘ (.1 ' I g, 1-N., . IA -77, Ap - N) 0 If ,5 '.• \ :I ,.,s PN v" . iX-9 ',14.1, J‘" .7_,..-,\-- , , , _.) = 0 (D ... 1/0-' iLs"..?.T4. - 1 -.. ..\, -7T7-T;%J:7'.- ;13 . 1 q 'fa, .\J \\.:\ I. let \, . 57'11 ,1 it t)' Ci H t ;(/'•. Y \�' NIr .t >y N 01 U) 1 i . .`�., n lD1 t i . j .. ,•. 3 -1 • Wil/ a) n U,. E1 tj L7 P. 0 11 z // �� J . M r E� ' .°.1 r LST/ /T,'- — 11 • c2 -c" '�'=t03 ill 9e2z_ ._. .._____ +nir S..,Ifc� t•1 rlkr.!t: a �oI,3 ,��U O `cO :r2:fY:,ti% (,')stiff;»� ..c.,.....,!..)1;.:(jri% r r r ^,i • 1111 Eft T I F I C AllE OF $UPVEY I hereby certify that on 5/6/87 I surveyed the property described above and that the above plot is a correct representation of said survey. • /Al, ' . � �� Calvin H. Hedlund, Minn. Reg. No.'5942 - • , 1 . . . . . ". . .. ... . .. . . .. . • . ,•,. , • -:•::. . . ,";, : ,•• . " .i [ sS . .. , ., • ',••:•',..',..1;',.t;,'.:*.:. ••; ''. - - ...z ., , ‹ - • • . .. . :. ... „ .. ,...) , . ,.. . . • ., . • i .i . fzL .kt . z ... ... . . . i ••• - : . . .• , :' ,< . • • 1 - : , ,.: :i;' , . . • t . . . . ';- ' .' • . • 1,-...":. . ...1., .4' 11111 • . . • . • • ' L....,... • ....,:_j_. . . ., • 1 . .. . . . . ., . . . ... . . . . . .. . , 7--------\\ • . , . .• . • ,.:.7, . -, - f„ - li. . . ( .---.=" . - 1,11i i 11 • , • - ,) . ......., ...,.: ; • . .4. v 4... .. . ...:.,-; ,• .., .,n. • • c3 - iiiii .... ,• . .. . , . ., ,.. . ..... .,, .. • • 4! • • I I I I ' 4 iiii fill!!10111. lif. ,. . .. . ': •• .• &€2., . . • • • • . ,g.. —i 4: • '. • . . i. - [0111 • ' r"1 ild ii ,‘,4 14,',.'.:.., '.0„.,0•• . . , ‘ etje. , ,.. In. , , . . • ,%=,7... •,.. • I • V,ii, ..i.,,i2",17..i '4;,:ti • • . \. • • • A ? • ..; I .. . •• • * .ii 1 II..111 I 1 1 hi 111/111111 14; • -;• . , . ... . . • - ' • 11 . .. . iiiiillitlil 1 ,••••;L.!, ' . f • •: • I .. :,'' • ::: .... :•1'Iiiii11-.14•!"1!:.:.;•(::!'::. „„',..7.,.111,....„. ,„,,.„ ,.„ . . .. . .. .. . .,.,1 , .7...,.. ,.; ,.., ,s't.!... % 11._ 11 - 10010/1 .... . ••••• -• . •,.i • 1.1J1'y.,, i'' • 1 il ,„ , . •. , ,;.11,.,i•-ir A' '- • k , . .... .. •,:,‘..‘ ,.. . • ..•• . . .4..3. • •. ., .........-.,: ., ,,,,,,,,,;i.,.....„,-.-„,-.-... lailiMillig MI .,.,,-,.......f ;.i •:',. :-!:\,;,.i• ,i; :::. .i k , 1 1 II .•, ,•.:...,. .,. .,. .• ,...., kv...-T.',..',...,i,..:. ----,-- --..„.,:••••.-,--. ..r,-,-:..:-.,.,..,-,-:::-7:-..,.. "..-i1:-2.7"7.7 —:7- ). -....:,. .:t:•4 . I! - . . , .. , 1....:. •• ,zi a ,... • :.',. .-. . . •••• .-• , ' .. • I, :-.sr:1 • • -; ' . ! .' 1. ... • • i - • , 1 - - '.'• II1 " ':, ' '....,z- :.:... '•''..: • ' : i . ! :': .".. ..N . " . '' . . ' 11111 . . . . . .. . . .- , .- i ;,.,•:", ,,,• .. . , ,,,• ... . .,. c .. . • • :. , :... . .k, . . .. • i i i • • ! - —• : • ,- . J.. ,. . r . .. . ,i.# , • . .,..: I 4!. '): f•T•• •: ••• .•. . ..• 1 • ,) ,, " /.- previ•1:ULW.'!•,'...:114,,V:14iV,V ,; ,: ‘6rWINII-VAIT401 1 . . . :. . ,•:.• • , ' .01,041111 . -- ri- .4 ''.: i ' weruti,4,.....,,,,, . (i• , ••••. rib' i. t?, '••,• 7, :; iit4 SIPE4 ihila '; 4•• . • , . ..... '-..... . 01) 1 Well I. : .' .- . 7'• 164 MIN , `?: :•,, i- i ' ••• t '.., .:• ,.' . :..-..• - ,/ i ‘ ,liMititatt.,7tViirtgtEth.itUar '' i :' •..: L,, latm.04.00 . : .••; , ..• „ . . All ...4.".4rOulaintskratin4Wfigiil,1 ... ''.: .,,,,.,:',, i4i4.t.tuiriuram3 - •,.,<• '.;:..• ,,' .. : ' .. . 111111111/1111111 /111111/11i111111111111111111111111111111114111M1111111111111111 :-::,•. , . .. : . . . ' .' • . ' . . • . . , •. • • • i I' 11111 ;I ill i .!•1.: ,191114:1! IrPrHI'l l i:i' 1. .1 RIP PI .:I'.;`..11;••••••':'i •••• • : - • . ... • 1":'•'''i.'1%.,Ht: ••••' ... 1,11,> ) ....:-' / 4 . 11•11: 1.: f• Hi i••• 0 it , , s . , ! - .,,,,,.. ....••• . , . . •:. , ,64 ,!, / I i, .., • • . . , , I 1,1 Iq! ig 1• _ ,I CA . ,,k.ill _...:,,;*; . •, -- • F • - I 1 fi ' . . • 1+ .' ) iii II 1 1.i.1.1t ;:j.1•;- . - . .. I I el 11 , • " 1,1il . ; :, • ..!, ,i • . ' . 1 ill Ill 1 : I ' ivii/idlii •',"- -AA, ' ! . '. •. : , • Iiiiiii / 9111111k. ' l' • ' '''.. 1 '' ' 'it II / .L. ' 1 '1.4 411.1P/ill r .•:;1•••• ..1:''.. ; . .. , . ; . , -,..... ., : 0 ,1. .,---- ..-:-•••,.,,- 4,01ig,iilliwegltvlitvziorilest,ciomi. ;. ,, i4 f.Ant,„.,R.Htxtr...,- y_t-:4::-.1.,,i1 j ..,..,,i ... :, . . ... , • ...!..1..•. ., :.;.;,‘ ,.1; t,.,,71,-.1.-m- 4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,o,,,,,,mr,,,,,,,,%,...... ?„,i 01.„. , .:. ), :,•,..;,.:-i--.-.1......:is, .y., ,;:., .i 0 • .• • • •••,, . • ..i *1 •' .,:' ', -, WM. iltill ORKIN* .V. f:-.. i,l,.1. . . ,i . . .. . ! ..,,.. , • 1..,11.!11.-11-....,•:.,, .,.,...,„. Nkii,00—'"4 Vow ma som iiii )11 k.'1,1.; ';:: IOW , fi44) ' 4.:' l'i. C),... , . ,..., -,‘ ,.,-: . '...i'l' iu., I • ,,, , t , .,....i. ,,, ,,,,,, (..,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,, , ,,,,.: i: .....,! , , ,3...''..,... ,„. . ... ...;..,........ Salt 3:44,0,4MiiMit , .: . 1: 1 Ce.'.iAteg.tiVIVA*Ati..:It ; — ".......i , I •, ; $.411 q tf. ,:.I •.,,. ., .' . .'n I. i ,. . . ••• - •, ..,;,4,,, • f II ." !I. :; :;:.:,', • *:' 1 't '.. 3•,..t.;'..:I' I 'i .1,:.: .4 1,,, .,• V, ::, .. ' ‘ 1 .. •/1... . . • / . . '. • . ,03'1 .,- i... • . •. , r • ' 1 • `' . ' • . - • i;-..:.N,•. . , 11111/ -.Nil 4 . - I • . • . , . 1 . , . • • I . . . • • -I ,• .';,.,‘,,,...,.. ;, . , is . • - - . . .. . . . o..•• . ! , . ., • • I • A''. •'.‘.‘: '.\ . :• 777111fiiiii 1. m - •4., ,,• . . . . •. II t':• k.‘‘.•- . : .. 11=Ali Ni Rana.- •• A-. * 'i "i.' ati .: IL . .... .... -x. . . . . .. . . . .. . , . . . t - . • r . I.:t• , . -- . • y • /hiw u fa c,'Lesct. 7,0.s_ _.r '*(2. C• • Leo iv gs 'c1. 4___... rneco. AgJav4<, OSS Rdo+ SI.„ Ait,,"'� A �wh�r V �.) 0 - 3 0 lb 2oa- PQ f — . • i(LA- WA-ht dlie I L 0 0 0 I I 0 P— V/2.. pi`7104\ • CiAtr64- s A. ;Ns S i,;N9144— FA--do' �/0 h'Q- S C� .% a.°(..11, I . Ax(,, f c �ds I 6 © t- 1 0 Ata tival1 ‘:Nst,L1oC & • ect; H-i ► it 5 oc1,e6v2 . Q A (cn-n i IVtA4A... s ti:l1 yy ✓ /41/ StN2ZILIZO CIA_ 1;. • 3/r u(y 7-'4-6- Rtatl tNs -- 1\17X/0 jo;S! /6 if 8. c- r\,, /"'.. = ^-^\ �,; t3/8 So' F) 7 nl�(41r,?l ,. ---6/,(6//f 0 ir . . . , 1 *col k- . . , , ' . : /3•//� ,,, ` . '• .' 3„ . ., ,., /opik i .ori.:447.5 - . . , •••., _ .. . ,..:______, - • Y 1:J -3 —I CwE Visi 0 m -0rrn Zorn � CD m0 < xiD v5 < z ;u i * rn9 ccn00 Zxiz .azo m 0 12' � Z m co 2648-2W CO 2648-2W —` 1 fill f — • xi m — m x coc m1 -4 —1 0 m xi n 5 0 = D v v 0 z o v • 0 z- O 0 E /\ 2448 2448 1 v Z -o D 73 0 co 0 = C < zF co c3 WK m z • 0 0 D N ti CA Z 0 X A � O • nna_omTCTEM remodeling 215 old highway 8 sw • p.o. box 120388 new brighton, mn 55112 • (612) 633-8611 minnesota building contractor id #0002624 . April 23, 1999 City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View,MN 55112 RE: Proposed variance for Mike & Sandy Leon 7386 Parkview Terrace Mounds View,MN 55112 To Whom It May Concern: The Leons have been residing at the above referenced address for the past several years. They currently wish to add a porch on to their home. • If you refer to the attached floor plans, you will see that the only place for them to add on is to the north. Adding a porch on to the rear(west)of the home is impossible because it would deny the homeowner convenient access, as this is where all the bedrooms are located. Access would mean going through a bedroom. On the south side of the house is the garage; there is no way to add a porch on there. Finally,to the front(east), the house is currently at a 32' setback,thus not allowing any additional room to add on. That leaves us with the north side. Currently, there is a 10' X 12' deck off the existing dining room. The Leons propose to add on a 10' X 12' porch(the exact size of the existing deck),thereby not encroaching any further towards the north property line than currently exists. It is our understanding that Mounds View zoning code allows a 5' side yard set back for a deck, but a minimum of a 10' sideyard set back for finished space. Therefore, we are requesting a variance to allow the Leons to construct the proposed porchit addition. `' • NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 01 IQ® ' OM°00 the REMODELING INDUSTRY N.Me oww•e wu.e•n Ig Remoaeloa a division of timbercraft enterprises, inc. OF IT HERS W As1 CITIES • In conclusion,we feel that the Leons should be allowed to have a porch on their home; due to the design of their house and it's layout on the lot,the only place to locate the new porch would be on the north side. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Per J. lowski CGR Pr side ,� • • • • April21, 1999 City of MoundsView 2401 Highway 10 MoundsView,MN. 55112 Attention: Planning Commission Re: Proposed variance for porch addition at the Leon residence at 7386 Parkview Terrace,MoundsView,MN. 55112. Dear Commissioners, We are the neighbors directly next door,to the north of the Leons. The Leons proposed addition will be adjacent to our south property line. Mr. and Mrs. Leon have met with us and shown us the plans for the porch addition. We understand that they are asking for a variance to build their porch with a five foot set • back from their north(our south)property line. We want to express our support for this project, and see no reason why the Leons should not be granted this variance. Sincerely, 'No Park-Vi.ew arra to (Acktnd5 MA 61 - S •• PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 579-99 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1104.01, SUBD. 3, OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SETBACKS, TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED SIDE-YARD SETBACK FOR A LIVING SPACE EXPANSION AT 7386 PARKVIEW TERRACE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 547-99 • WHEREAS, Mike and Sandy Leon have applied for a variance to allow for a living space expansion five feet from the north side property line at 7386 Parkview Terrace, property zoned R- 1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: Lot 10, Block 1, Silver Lake Woods Second Addition Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following . . 11- I - I .•l I I• SIG 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Surveyor's Certificate 4. Proposed Expansion Plan 5. Proposed Expansion Elevation 6. Letter from the Contractor,dated 4/23/99 7. Letter from Ken&Anne Stagg,dated 4/21/99 WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's • control; and, • Planning Commission Resolution 579-99 Leon Variance • June 2, 1999 Page 2 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, May 19, 1999 with regard to this variance request; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 7386 Parkview Terrace to warrant the approval of a variance to Mike and Sandy Leon for the construction of a 120 square-foot living space addition five feet from the property line, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to 7386 Parkview Terrace which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity in that the property is a substandard lot--its area comprises only 9,150 square feet, a condition the current owners • had no part in or control over. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title in that porches and other living space additions are common features in this district and serve as a physical improvement to properties. Other properties in this district typically are able to make these types of improvements without the need for variances. However, because the subject property is substandard, it would be unreasonable to assume that the same size house could be built and expanded upon without a comparable reduction in the setback requirements. 3. The variance request is the result of two factors over which the applicants had no control. The house was constructed on the substandard lot in such a way that wasted five feet of buildable space alongside the garage. The side-yard setback for garages attached to principal structures is five feet, yet the garage is set back ten feet. Had the house been constructed so as to take advantage of this additional five feet alongside the garage, a variance would not have been necessary as there would have been adequate room to allow for a living space addition on the north side of the property. The other factor contributing to a need for a variance is that the internal configuration of the home is atypical in that the floor plan allows for a living space addition only off the north side of the house. There is only bedroom space off the rear of the home, the most logical place for these types of additions. • Planning Commission Resolution 579-99 Leon Variance • June 2, 1999 Page 3 4. Granting a variance to allow a three-season porch or other type of living space addition would not be a special privilege--most properties in this district either have similar types of additions or have the space to construct such additions. 5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship in that the property owners wish to replace an existing deck with the enclosed living space addition. If the addition were to be constructed observing the proper setbacks, it would only be seven feet deep--not enough room for a table and chairs. The five foot variance is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship. 6. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code requirements and factors beyond their control. Granting this variance for a living space addition would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. 7. A living space addition of such a limited size (120 square feet) at the reduced side yard setback would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. • Adopted this 26th day of April, 1999. Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\553-99\579-99PC.RES 110 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION IPMeeting Date: May 27, 1999 Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate Planning Case No.: 555-99 Request: Development Review Petitioner: Mike Juaire (PMJ Group, Inc.) Location: 7623 - 7629 Woodlawn Drive PIN Nos. 08-30-23-22-0003 Zoning/Land Use: R-3, Medium Density Residential Applicable Regulations: Section 1006.06, Development controls Section 1104.01. General zoning provisions -- yard requirements Section 1104.02, Area and building size regulations Attachments: Planning Application Zoning Map • Site Plans (Separate Attachment) Building Elevations(Separate Attachment) Planning Commission Resolution 570-99 Background: The applicant, Mike Juaire, representing PMJ Group, has requested approval of a development review for the four-plex to be located at 7623 - 7629 Woodlawn Drive, currently vacant property. The applicant has purchased this lot and the adjoining formerly tax-forfeit property to the east and plans on developing both with four-unit dwellings. The elevations provided fur the four-plex show a simple, four-unit back-to-back two-story building with no architectural features to break the building's uninterrupted straight lines. The front elevation show four windows, four garage doors and four entryways. The side elevations do not show any windows while the rear elevation shows three windows per unit. Analysis: Dimensional Requirements: Building Setbacks: Required Proposed: Met ? Front(Woodlawn Dr.) 30 feet 30 feet Yes Side(West): 20 feet 20 feet Yes • Side (East): 20 feet 20 feet Yes Rear(North): 40 feet 40 feet Yes p Juaire Development Review Planning Case No. 555-99 June 2, 1999 • Page 2 Required Proposed: Met ? Parking Lot Setbacks: 5 feet >5 feet Yes Minimum lot width: 100 feet 108 feet Yes * Minimum lot area: (2,500 sq. ft per D. U.): 10,000 sq.ft. 15,246 sq.ft. Yes Minimum Open Space (625 sq.ft. per dwelling unit) 2,400 sq. ft. 3,700 sq. ft. Yes Building height: 45 feet 26 feet Yes Minimum floor area for three-bedroom dwelling units: 870 sq.ft. 960 sq.ft. Yes Parking requirements: Uncovered: (1.5 per unit) 6 spaces 4 spaces Yes** Covered: (1.0 per unit) 4 spaces 8 spaces Yes * Since this lot is located on the curve of a street,the lot width dimension is measured at the 30-foot building setback line. **The four extra covered spaces compensates for the reduction in uncovered spaces. Drainage: The site is flat with little if any elevation change from one end to the other. Given that, devising a • suitable plan to handle stormwater runoff becomes a challenge. Staff has review a preliminary drainage plan for the four-plex (as shown on the certificate of survey) and has found that it would be sufficient if there were no other mitigating factors. There is, however, one issue which further complicates the drainage plan, and that is the adjacent property--Woodlawn Terrace Apartments-- has extensive runoff flowing onto the applicant's property. There has been much discussion between the applicant and the adjacent property owner in an effort to resolve the drainage issues, and because many options do exist, staff feels confident that an acceptable solution will be achieved. The applicant has retained a drainage engineer who will be providing a detailed analysis of the situation and will formulate options which can be utilized to alleviate the drainage concerns. This information was not completed at the time this report was written, though should be available for your meeting on June 2, 1999. Landscape Plan: In Section 1103.08 of the City Code pertaining to Fencing, Screening and Landscaping, it states that the lot area remaining after providing for off-street parking, sidewalks, driveway, building and other requirements shall be planted and maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other acceptable vegetation or materials generally used in landscaping. The applicant proposes at this point nothing more than sod for the site. Staff recommends that specific plantings be shown on the final site plan in a quantity and quality that would be acceptable to both the applicant and the City. There has been some discussion about constructing a fence around the property, but at this time one is not planned. The applicant would like to be able to do so in the future if it is determined to • be necessary for security or other reasons. s, Juaire Development Review Planning Case No. 555-99 June 2, 1999 • Page 3 Parking: Each of the new townhouse-styled multi-family units is proposed to have a tuck-under attached two-car garage while the two units closest to the street will have driveway space for an additional two vehicles each. The Code requires that there be 2.5 parking spaces provided per unit and the applicant is proposing an average of three spaces per unit. There are two problems with the parking plan however that will need to be addressed before the site plan can be approved. First, the two units furthest from the street cannot have parking in front of the garage because there is not enough room. While this is not a desired situation, it could be acceptable if the tenants are made aware of this restriction. Second, and more importantly, there does not appear to be sufficient area for backing out of the complex. While it would be possible for cars from the two units closest to the street to back out of the garage and exit the property in a forward motion, the two end units can only exit the property in reverse. Staff would not be in support of this plan if there were no means to correct this situation. Building Character: While the City typically does not require that buildings be designed to the highest and most appealing aesthetic standards, there are some simple changes that staff would suggest could be utilized to improve the exterior appearance of this development. First, it would be suggested that • the entryways be moved so that they are at ground level and be protected with some type of overhang. Second, there should be an exterior light between each entryway and garage for safety and security purposes. Third, with the lowered entryway, there would be sufficient room for a secondwindow, perhaps in the foyer area. Last, the entryways for the end units should be moved so that access is taken from the sides of the building rather than the front. These changes, and any others proposed by the Planning Commission, should be incorporated into the site plans for final approval of the City Council. Utilities and Easements . - - ten-foot drainage and utility easements on the property's north and west sides which will more than likely serve as drainage areas for the development. There are no easements along the east lot line between the two vacant properties, and because the City typically requires that five-foot side yard drainage and utility easements be dedicated, this may be something that will need to be addressed. There is no need for garbage enclosures as garbage containers will be kept inside the garages. Other Issues: It can be seen on the certificate of survey that the neighboring property, Woodlawn Terrace Apartments, encroaches onto the subject property in two places near the southern end toward Woodlawn Drive. Woodlawn Terrace's dumpster enclosure and parking lot cross the lot line, • which is a violation of the City Code. Staff will be meeting with the owner of the apartment complex on June 1 to discuss this and other issues relative to the development of the four-plex. r Juaire Development Review • Planning Case No. 555-99 June 2, 1999 Page 4 • Conclusions: Taking into consideration those comments and suggestions outlined in this report, Staff would recommend approval of Planning Commission Resolution 580-99, a resolution recommending approving approval of a development review for a four-unit multi-family structure at 7623 - 7629 Woodlawn Drive, as requested by Mike Juaire, representing PMJ Group, Inc., with stipulations. James Ericson, Planning Associate N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\555-99\JUAIRE.PC1 • • • 05/14/99 15:40 FAX 612 784 3462 CITY OF N g002/005 • 4 '3sY Y7 V a ' ©WEB COM I" NiT'Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION •,, il[" j 2401 Highway 10,Mounds View lvIN 55112 ''��'�• Par tner4ri 612.717-4020 • 612-784-3462-FAX Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form Applicant Information _ _ Name of Applicant t e,hctel f). -�(,( ire, Telephone 4 fZ—3/.5'31,5 Z Address l4f e. n �tl: _ Fax (D12- .3)5—S9/i6 Otho Pa't 2 y'CctitP3 Interest in Property(check appropriate box) X. Owner of Property Q Contract for Deed Owner O Lessee,Operator,Manager 0 Agreement to Purchase ❑ Other(explain) Applicants must provide evidence of interest hi 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 tiling of this application. The property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted. Property Description/Proposal Address ar General Location . Lal'-5 t uEsr Oi' eDCaE P ¢- t'OCOI 11441- LNOZT4 sta..) Legal Description L bT q 13‘,0Cie L P -R. V(liw. Treg.gtice. M • Property Identification#.(PIN O r ^ 36—23 —22-- 0.003 #of Acres O. 35 )re/G . Current Zoning �3 Type of Application 7 t 3- a'Y O Comprehensive Plan Amendment $250 L000°I—Leer-0 K.- • a Rezoning $250/acre; min$250 max$1500 O Major Subdivision $250+$250 deposit* O Minor Subdivision $200 C Planned'Unit Development(PUD) Refer to rezoning fees ❑ PUD Amendment $350 ❑ . Conditional Use Permit R-1, R-2$75;all others$250 o Variance R-1, R-2$100 all others$250 o Code Appeal $100 X Develop Review/Site Plan $125/au re;min$125 max$750 O Wetland Alteration Permit R-I,R-2$150;,all others$200 ❑ Wetland Buffer Permit R-1.R-2$25;ail others$100 ❑ Floodplain Permit $200 n Other *Deposits shall be paid to cover all costs of public notices,materials and staff or consultant time spent in the review, • 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. 05/14/99 15:41 FAX 612 784 3462 CITY OF NV Z003/005 City of Mounds View,MN Page 2 Development Applicntioa Present Use of Property p Single Family Dwelling • aUndeveloped/Vacant Duplex/Two Family Dwelling t: Multi-family Dwelling o Business/Commercial Establishment C Industrial Establishment O Other(explain) Property Classification 0 Abstract /111( Tam Description of Proposal N Et,J CotJs-ctt-L -TI et-5 CSP 4 U.N 1'l. 12.614-47)G Pitereitrp BY MY(OUR.)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,I HEREBY DECLARE THAT.TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE ANDD ACCURATE, Signature of Applicant Name of Applicant(typed/printed) 1J')cQ e e J udi r Signature of Property Owner lile‘44/auName ofPrope ty Owner(typed/printed) ;llae( f. tzr t Address of Owner gill Tel- Cocci (',asst r►6 • - 554 -3 Phone Number of Owner _fo i 31S " 31rr- Z *******************************************s***.*.****************************w***************** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Submittal 5-a' —°t Assigned to: Date of Acceptance 60-day Limit 120-day Iimit Planning Case No. S s 9 Account# Check# Receipt# Fees Paid: �, Application: J_i—'0° I£ O- 31 / C?(/ Park Dedication: Deposits: Other: Total: ;mss NADATAIOROUPS1COMDEVFORMSTEVAPP.FOR 411 I ,°" HILLVILW 7913 7910W w M N �'.� 7917 7940 PARK 7945 793 7931 7909 7906 7909 N M I N N ca n• 7901r. 7930 p I N L�� 7901 N N 7900 PF 9011 va ii 7900 v w v v 7905 790 \- ..,o c :TT,- R D o N11• • N N N N N 7901 t0 'CZ N N ROAD M N N N N p N d. t0W M VI N n oO 7895 w 04 7890 7885 La 7864 7865 a.'"'88. M N PF �.O M M In M M M P N N N N N N 7669 a' d` N N N N N N c N N N g 7867 7870 7869 7858 7853 . 7878 7875 7869 7860 OAKWOOD DR 7852 7855 Mr 5616 5619 561 1 7851 7860 7865 w ........11111 7870 7861 0 7857 2 7850 7855 7846 Y 7841 , !' 7841 _ g 7836 7847= 7845 784 561 N 5612 5613i._ 561 0 7840 7835 7840 7829 II::; S 560 5606 5607 N 560 -0 7820 0 7837 OE W 782 Mt }0 7815 7800 7817 _p 7833 5601 5600 5601 560 _ 7815 7790 0 . 7809 781413 7815 7827 •0 02 Op 7805 7780 7801 7808 7817 �'-'°� 556'W 5562 5563 556 7809 7770 3 7801 7760 7797 7800 7801 2:2 r 555 1 5556 5557 w 555 7801 w 7751 7750 7787 7778 7749 512 7807 n 5551 U 5550 5551E. 555 7767 7760 7741 7740 7777 7768 7739 f(rlil 7751-►"' A N N�y 9 554 C9 7767 � �. y 554' 5544 5545 7761 7750 7731 7730 7753 -7748 7729 pc 1 7741 • PINEWOOD n CIRD ?� 5539 5538 5539 553 7755 7730 7721 7720 7728 7719��„ .�ilii� .. ®� M to 's8 5533 5532 7745 7710 7711 7710 7 �p 7721 �ii N N i— 5533 553 pp M 5527 5526 5527 552 7715 oo co to (0 to co ,o 7700 • NA. M N N N Wink 7701 770 7701 ®�® N 5521 5520 5521 552 R-2 CO RD nntoto to totoow 2553 N N N Ei0 ca tip� M 0�� 0 0�� 7695 N N N N n M M NNNN con NNC4NN 2551 Z - '�_ N-N c� to 2549 ��i11 0 N 2547 -1 7687 R—..•• R-4 ��J 7643 N N B-4 25451 , 7661 2541 7641 2539 766l• 761. 7639 7651 2537 .• ,P 7:. 55 7635 lazy*mg �,oo 78351172 ry`' —4 7645 E 7625 PA 7641 R-4 7:1.. �� r r �R.• YLS4 IJP 1i/C { 7.g�L'�Ii z r 7631 ` i y., B-2 tiyyy —2 n n � • et Ifi 7581..�t.t.. 7531 7565 c `V ...\. ��` N N N N 7551 755•cv 40 in cv7521 , cost c7.8 co.-- c-.1 o 7535 753 7511 ,N^NN � ._ 7521 752 ;" +0+NCD •«N N i+� �. 7505 7504 7501 54C N 4 ,�- hilliNk...')r PF - . bRONSOt' !s1 1V't0 0 E"''N • G.21,2 21,2 N CITY HALL �cm 5394 535 t0 N N o N o 1 EES 5386 53E :; am t7, 5380 53E wr ,veP1 / ass 5372 531 N N II!mou �5c3�66 53f F may 4p ii ktai Eras 53; B-1 14v @Zs 53, ,y,., , SSS,. 8336 . . 53: to , : :° 5co 0 532 `S(•l1Wd1I1Z •111;4 . 53' o ttoo CO % 41* 531 N to co N N41111b . �� 53 R-4 Mr ++riAl g 52. N ti� w U 529 52) rwomto•r o ( I ... - B— a ;��'lig1 I .1 I 1 ls9. H�nl, 152791 I�I�I:I�IuilFwalwal oy N N N .F '� d' Y r• t 531 �„"� 1 III Zoning Map Planning Case 550-99 Applicant: PMJ Group, Inc (Mike Juaire) Location: 2200 - 2214 Highway 10 N4 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 580-99 • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A FOUR-UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING LOCATED AT 7623 - 7629 WOODLAWN DRIVE; PLANNING CASE NO. 555-99 WHEREAS, PMJ Group, represented by Mike Juaire, has requested City approval of a development review for a four-unit multiple family residential structure to be located at 7623 - 7629 Woodlawn Drive, legally described as follows: Lot 9,Block 1,Parkview Terrace Ramsey County,Minnesota WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a development review be conducted for all commercial and industrial development and all residential development where more than two dwelling units are being erected within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following • documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plan(Certificate of Survey)date-stamped 5/28/99 4. Elevations,date-stamped 5/24/99 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plan date-stamped May 28, 1999 conforms to the general zoning requirements of Chapter 1104 with regard to and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission is aware that City staff has reviewed proposed drainage plans and has determined that a suitable method for addressing drainage considerations can be accomplished, yet that plan has not yet been finalized; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the building elevations and architectural design of the structure could be improved and has offered a list of requested changes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of a development review for a four unit multiple family • residential structure to be located at 7623 - 7629 Woodlawn Drive, subject to the following stipulations: L Resolution 580-99 Juaire Development Review • June 2, 1999 Page 2 1. A landscaping plan shall be provided showing all areas to be sodded and those areas where additional plantings will be located with the species and quantities identified, prior to City Council review. 2. The building plans shall be revised prior to City Council review as follows: a. The entryways shall be located on the ground floor and the entryways for the two end units shall be relocated to the sides of the building rather than the front.. b. An exterior light shall be located on the building adjacent to each entryway. c. Overhangs or some other type of architectural feature shall be added to the structure over each entryway. d. A second window shall be added to the front of the building for each unit. 3. A final drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City before any building permits are issued. • 4. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City prior to building permits being issued for those areas to be utilized for drainage purposes where none have been previously been dedicated . 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 2nd day of June, 1999 Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDE V\DEVCASES\5 5 5-99\5 80-99PC.RES • DATE: May 28, 1999 TO: Mounds View Planning Commission FROM: Terri Blattenbauer 4, , YMCA Program Executive RE: Paving of trail at Silverview On Wednesday, May 26 at the regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, 11 community members were present and spoke to support the paving of the remainder of the trail that surrounds Silverview pond. This has been an item of discussion with the Parks and Rec. Commission for some time, as they have been working towards a plan for spending park dedication funds for enhancements to City parks. At this time the Commission moves this item to the Planning Commission with the hopes that it can move • rapidly forward to the City Council, and hopefully to some fruition yet this summer. Thank you for your attention to this project. If you have questions,please call me at (612)717-4042. S L • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 19, 1999 Mounds ,4. City Hall 2401 Highway 10, nds;; tew, MN 55112 : 1. Call to Order A The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterso'$ ,7:00,g.; ., May 19, 1Ne,. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissio s Ber e„ ,. :;. , Hegland, Kaden, and Miller. ,t' y Members Absent: Commissioners Johnson, . Orbe ar a t enson with rior notice. Also Present: Community Development Director <ck Jop`k rang Associate Jim Ericson, . and Recorders Carla Wirth and Tris, arson. ,' ar Index to M' Utes Page -. Plannin_ ' 53-9•; a a�...�'. iew Terrace, Mike& Sandy Leon, 2 Property 0 � ., c 4 )iderati :. nce request for a reduced side yard %setback for a t i • p .porch Staff Rep ,' tems 'z•••'kar ation 7 Cha' on and Plannin Q,'. $ issioners Reports 9 )5,:',= Citizens' R• ests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda �'�.: ff & .-s s or comments on items not on the agenda were considered. 4. Approval of Minutes A. April 21, 1999 0 s Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 2 Commissioner Miller stated that the minutes had been reviewed at the last meeting, and a few very minor corrections had been made. 30 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Hegland to approve the April 21, 1999 mee. !g miy. tes as corrected. Ayes—6 Nays—0 t otion carried. Alv Ar 5. Planning Case No. 553-99 .. 'Public Ilea<: "?< :.1 4,4..,,,, Property Involved: 7386 Parkview Terrace .- Consideration of a variance request for a reduced side y4r 'se4 ,x,. r .three-season porch Applicant: Mike& Sandy Leon �, .`..,. The applicant was present `Plannin Associate Ericson gave the sta leport flows: , • The applicants,Mike and Sandy Le _0f! eque ng a vari dee from the required ten-foot side yard setback established for principal sings a,§zt. ing s.a_;- therein. They would like to replace and existing 10 2 square foo .c'` rth a t '1-,;7-':: ""1 *orch of the same size in the same location. .3 ... (.,':, The dec as exis -Ail. :-r const , e house, is five feet from the north side of the propert4'l'- > °z_< !uire a '> two foot side yard setback. k`. The subject pr : ,,cated i :,%4 ' er Lake Woods single family hoe development at the northeast co ,:' W ,0: , o,ad u '4 Silver Lake Road. The home, whichmfaces east, is one of many in t R evelop Y #; ve street at the front (Parkview Terrace) and back (Silver Lake Road) $ �.-e property. F_} &. k`- of this property is only 9,150 square feet. t , E ' n noted for the Pl. ` ing Commission to act favorably on a variance application, the Planning - > 'scion must find„0 emonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property iiiiik akes a literal.;rrpretation of the Code overly burdensome or even restrictive to a property tatp t..:;es require that the governing body review a. set of specified criteria for each a -:. ,,. "g ` ake its decision in accordance with these criteria as set forth in Section 1125.02, Su• <' ":i , of the City Code. He noted the Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. Ericson noted this lot was approved in 1985 as part of the Silver Lake Woods Second Addition subdivision and in conjunction with the Silver Lake Woods Planned Unit Development (PUD) • agreement. While density bonuses and reductions in frontage requirements were given to the • Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 development to allow for substandard lots, no mention is made in the documentation about allowance for reduced setbacks. AV Ericson reviewed the seven criteria which must be considered and stated gax aft- ch analysis, it appears to staff that in this case there is no hardship, unless th- Planni 1r �:� .: :$sion were to take into consideration that the lot area is substandard. (The lot ',,,:'-, .;feet v ;l;l °:'<. : .:„feet deep, for an area of 9,150 square feet, substantially less than the requir :._ _ 1,000 s u 4� e" :- 'red.) Yet,” width of the property, at 75 feet, does comply with the Codi:," spot*p y .wand it is Ater pot ;wid Griot depth or area, which is basis for this variance. k;. • :` Ericson outlined the criteria as follows: :; .4 44-litbaffiet, a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances ply to", . �� . � � � ty which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zones.�, icinity a.; .. ;,l,om lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which : :;ers of t 'eprperty since the effective date hereof have had no control. ` '` " `= ,E Ericson stated that he could no :4 iscerny except y c rcumstances applicable to this IIIproperty. b. The literal interpretation o .:, e provist`:`. of this thi4i e would deprive the applicant of rights com slily enjoyed b:. .t - proper* n*` e district under the terms of this Title. : `° � -dtha �i , `. : eral interp - ation of the Code would not prohibit the property Y owt 'nstrue't `. : s it could only be 7 feet in depth. lalitilL: -ftcyoger, c. That th- •. 'tions or`c instances do not result from the actions of the applicant. cson stated t : ii i. :_; 'ance request is the result of the applicant's desire to construct a ee-season por: ` d• That granting t °agriance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege obit that is denie O fy this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same :; :aa ,Strict. ENOW '``` .<. ; : n stated that three-season porches are allowed in this district, but not all property owners have room to accommodate them. He stated that this is a desirable improvement, and that in the past, the Planning Commission has approved variances to allow for living space conditions. He stated that staff should determine whether or not this particular property met the same criteria as past properties. II Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 4 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Ericson stated that this would be the minimum variance re uired o>alleyifig this hardship. He reiterated that if the porch were constructed observin• the r� IUcks, it would only be 7 feet in depth, which, he stated, would not be e «< areati7V74. f. The variance would not be materially detrimen ,r to the pu :ese of h .. : :'Mir to • "er in the same zone. `:.. property aiiiiiMatr N.<:. ,. :r Ericson stated that the purpose of the Code was to maintain riziottotiFparation of uses.' lie stated that the existing deck has a setback of 5 feet an‘tpdiellgjcant wishes to construct the three-season porch at the same setback. lie noted,notedTfttowev <,>t hree-season porch could be viewed as a more intensive use of the s ace,,:. g. The proposed variance will not impair,,h ek F>w;supply,a'1 ight and air to adjacent ro er or substantially th :on esti:.: a h <$ i lic eets or increase the danger P P tY increaseg �:::.;, �:::::::,�� :. � g of fire or endanger the public s! ety or s :; tantia .:'_>•�.:i ttnish or impair property values within the neighborhood : . ....,,,,, III 4., 0 .41, Ericson stated that he did believat a por.• :, . t the reduced side yard setback would �y - M: depri a other reside .o <:t a right to? d` alight. 0A;'s7,s :-, ted th. ` >iex :i `eria lend ' emselves to subjective thought and requested the Pla . :` .,.s' ssion r >;gm to determine whether or not a hardship exists. Ericson state. :� ; M1 `�d direct a 'e required mailing to all residents within 350 feet of the subject pre;®e' , a M - `.:ved no response. He stated that he had received a letter from a neigh')!filth adjacent $;, so houses north of the applicant, who stated that they approved the • KNosed constn'cti•riiiir C,j.< Peterson opened �e Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. Ar gatil' • `' ifrlowski,"`presentative of TimberCraft Remodeling the applicant's contractor, stated that �,,:+,$ :• "` :,e • anned on constructing a porch on the property since purchasing it in 1981. He sta . s; `e the deck was already there, the applicant had assumed he could build a porch in the same area. Murlowski stated that when he and the applicant discovered that the existing deck was not in compliance with the City Code, they looked at other options for placement of the deck. He stated that placing the porch at the rear of the home would require the elimination of one of the two bedrooms located there. Due to inadequate front yard setback, as well as aesthetics, the porch could II • Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 not be constructed on the front of the property, and a garage is located on the opposite side of the structure which would prohibit placement there. , 4'w Mr.Murlowski stated that in 1996 a variance had been granted for the same pure s- to a neighbor located directly across the street from the applicant's propert , � •:: ,41 Commissioner Braathen stated that he had driven by the a. cant's pro rtxm `'uid see that placement of the original deck lent itself to the construc n of a porn. Hes;: .‘;:iiia',. _he 'rno objection to approving the request for a variance. a x ti Commissioner Miller asked if the proposed deck would b-'= ;.:.. Mr. Murlowski stated that the applicant had planned on siding the porch in continuum . : `< ge f the structure. Wit, ,;,. Commissioner Hegland asked if the subject proper •s zone.' < :;.. <` ; ': unity Development Director Jopke stated that some of the homes in th r:14,: :ire zone.= Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 6 Chair Peterson stated that the Surveyor's Certificate indicated there was space behind the garage on the west side and asked what was located there. Ericson stated that there was a bedroom and laundry room in back of the .mage„� tch would make that area inaccessible. He reiterated that the south side of th-.home r..; i? ; :ccessible and the front did not have the required setback Chair Peterson stated that this situation would apply to : er hous, $ nd t``-:r::.:.; �`e„a u' Ie q. same consideration. • Mr.Murlowski stated that this was true, however, the prec e a l been setwith the first variance that was granted 'Z, . Commissioner Miller asked from what point the set . r , as detern ' `e; ' the porch was to be re constructed above ground level. Mr. Murlowsk',a �� 't would .:j� sured from the outside wall. Commissioner Kaden asked in regard to e# teri. the s i, t'cumstances did not result from < the actions of the applicant. Mr. ;_:% i�t'Yowski.� ated> tha at this time it was the desire of the • homeowner, not a necessity, but t may be> cessary awn the standpoint that they may require expansion to remain in the resident; e state4.,l.at the hd :e was already 100 percent finished, and if they could •of expand, th- have to Oft,° : >: 1' , . .,, his chi •re were now teenagers and they had waited for this Mike #,-;,4,,,::,„.„ e , o„• scant •• �• opportune :` • • . o thei �& - - stated that they needed more room to accommodate their etcgrowing fami hey di• Y '#o move. ,,, . Commissi•: :ra.t . a t,e that t e hardship was created in 1985 when the City allowed re- . r :#;ted that he su orts grantingthe variance. subdivi " of the props PP Co ssioner Hegland of 'es. He stated, however, that he had concerns about setting a precedent altkii e possibility of cr:TI.•ting a situation that may impose upon the neighbors. fitiw- -rson s -e'lhat the matter was just up for consideration and there was no clear direction ah t.: ;; . , 0• that he did not believe there would be a negative impact on the neighbors to the no ' & 0mh'•' se, and added that he thought this would be a desirable improvement. He stated that the placement of the structure on the lot did not allow for expansion, but he was concerned that this was not unique. Mr. Murlowski stated that a typical twin-home has a split entry with a patio door and deck off the • back. L III Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mr. Leon explained that he believed his property was unique in that all the other homes in the neighborhood had a patio slab in the back which allowed for further expansion. Chair Peterson stated that he had driven by the property and had noticece fe . He asked if it would be removed. Mr. Leon stated that his fence located in e sideyar' : '$ be removed. : Commissioner Miller asked how they would address Item;,, F of the cn, >,;cY € °tai:'<' `` ial conditiik: or circumstances do not result from the actions of the a .; .., ant.' ,„,r ; T '� lasPki,‘ .s>,-Ii , t Ericson stated that they could maintain a hardship in thy :,e,Mased solely upon x that the fx 4 tittob house was situated on the lot creating a 10 foot setback fqfpwszstage. He stated that the garage required only a 5 foot setback, which would have provided >.t s d space for expansion. He stated that the placement of the structure on the lot wasrot the " F: - applicant. Commissioner Miler stated that if all the criteria:?tr =�:< .;, :41:te would'`upport a resolution granting approval of the variance. $° n..�` 5s <>:.;'�y,#fid.. $s<: __V rTuo Chair Peterson stated that they had recently approved a 5 $4:: ariance on a smaller home, but III viewed that differentlyas that was f.. ,�`�edroo `ghich is c � sidered living space. Commissioner Hegland stated t :;.:11:: `>` e`appli: _^t had p.:,.,:.0 sed the home the way that it was. He stated, how;ver, that horn'.. *.0 : s are nod< " `:ware of the City's requirements regarding variances backs, e;.IiITNIK War 111004 Mr. Murlo 4; . ..ated t :`�i , . � c ant assumed that since the deck was in place when he purchased the'ittab,,ould c.` `re:`'; a orch in the same area. Chair Pet "'s a ; r `., as th.nkful the applicant had come before the Commission before constn. g the porch.. . s that they needed to formally address the hardship issues that satis.0 the criteria. :f 4 w`sted staff be directed to conduct further research and submit a res: ion for considera °`'h a`''the next meeting scheduled for June 2, 1999. : • no further d'i-,.:ii ssion, Chair Peterson closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. °a . '' ` ed to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving a variance for a reduced side- ya ' :' < '` � .`allow for the construction of a three-season porch five feet from the side property . line. 6. Staff Reports/Items of Information IIA. Billboard Update Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 8 Community Development Director Jopke gave an update regarding the issue of billboards in the community. He stated that he believed that a Code amendment was the most appropriate way to approach the issue. He stated that he had been directed by the Planning Commis :* to conduct further research into the State requirements for a permit and had learned 'it th <>: te would only grant a permit in commercial or industrial zoning districts and at they*, .`` gossue a permit in a situation where re-zoning was done strictly for the purpos-,„5 lowitli. :..::t:. s. He stated that the State also requires permits for billboards along State and pa eral highw i : a ed that he t afi spoken to a consultant who informed him that a permit hadeen previou :''gran♦; °•° t.k ,* wine hies to allow for a billboard on a golf course within an instititk al typeof zoning. ' <cF.this indicated a precedent had been set. ,_. : Jopke stated he spoke to Mike Cronin who suggested thea` - •t issues to considered, one being whether or not CRP is the proper zoning for the golf cou `" :.; ' :dly, that the Code issues regarding signage in a CRP or PF districts need to b-�,t.!.>;�-wed. "e,st '::0 t at the present time, no signage is permitted in these districts but they d .:., ;:.:. �;�:: his matteitiO ld be addressed as part of the overall discussion. Jopke stated that,: 'er •k,ic '1 : ::,:gardin revenue projections were o `° ' rst time revenue would be discussed with Mike Hammerschmidt �` belie. 'd� .a,.. ��. �> approximately $12-24,000 per year pert board,; ependii',n.`' ( the provider as well as factors Illsuch as the location of the billboard. .,..:.,: ,i„. Chair Peterson stated that he ha. i erved .a nt billboo ;ds and asked if they generated revenue. bfflJopke stat-� `i `. he was ?Cu. ' _ He confirmed�=: at any revenue generated from the signs would have to ®� -tire the . e... :, e golf course and could not be directed to the General Fund. V d Jopke stated d i : pis:... :•< ch he ':.; ;xoken with the Community Development Directors of the x:A a x >tt .;: cities of S %;' ew an. .; ; 4 Is who informed him that their requirements prohibited construction of new !;iboards. He st > .� �.this point, he had not been able to determine when the Ordinance ha. . , . - i - . s Id find no discussion which addressed the billboard issue in the ` Fo :i"2000 meeting ma ial`. . $ge issioner Bra. < h stated that the issues should be defined and resolved before further vtiqpi:i �4. and r-, ed that the Commission not"shut the door" on the billboard issue. He stated ` ! -d very few vacant billboards, and if they are vacant, it was because they were in o e0.415�K w1,04.� : He stated that Mr. Hammerschmidt was researching locations that would be appropriate for billboards. He requested that the Work Sessions be rescheduled to meet on Wednesday so that he would have the opportunity to attend. He suggested the first direction would be to change that current CRP zoning. • • Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 Commissioner Hegland stated that the Planning Commission should determine if there would be enough revenue generated from the billboards to justify further consideration. 40, Chair Peterson stated that they should address the issues of desirability and e om' He stated that the type of signs required in a PF district are identification signs, a. ° : 11boards might not be necessary. He stated that he had received only negative r '.; °.:ase from` < ' munity regarding billboards. He stated that there were a number of road13t ks to overcomer.. ling the Ste requirements, and asked if there was a way around their nce regard g re- ii Jopke stated that he believed this could be overcome, b' ... ' y�. er to approach th`--. om the standpoint of usage or re-zoning need further discussion t•i�..,r ,.,draw a conclusion. He stated that he would continue to investigate the State requirem- . ,;a co duct further research. iv, B. Previous Council Actin ' " o ' v ...4 ` Community Development Director Jopke stat:.• to c l gave second reading and adopted Ordinance 629 which provides consistent.l guage .i:d an appt :tment policy for expired and un- expired terms. • Jopke stated that the theater is opey he C 6,061 had d' ;:'_'ssed a number of items that remained incomplete. He stated a tempos. Certific< :of Occupancy had been issued since there are still ate- some minor i sues and land . .i` which .: completed. Aka ANION tilkl:i''' Jopke r$. + ,; :uildmg ..t,_ ,ging forwad'biut he is uncertain whether or not they have signed tenants yet-11 '''` , ,.. _%wokle: ,.i`k kik" «.k. Jopke reporter . °''_.life Coop ative is under way. He stated that AnthonyProperties �. Y Y P Managem- ` .. a oing through the bidding process, and hope to have the first office buildin!` s . _ County Atitirekti..der construction in July. He stated that they are confident that they ,„,' . . .• Building is constructed, and they are considering construction of a ret . .ject 0 'o the theater. R f # } +: • ion stated that Saturday, May 22, is the Mounds View Spring Clean-Up Day autfido munity that they could drop off items of discard at the Public Works garage. uag AirV E .; g. >'-. that he had taken an extended tour of the theater. He stated that it was a"first class viewing situation," and remarked that the sound quality was excellent. 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 110 Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 10 Commissioner Kaden reported that he had attended the advanced zoning application workshop on April 29, 1999, found it to be informative, and thought it was a worthwhile seminar. 0 Kaden stated that he attended the meeting at the State Capital along with City Ad i trator Whiting and Mayor Coughlin. He stated that there were currentlyt .o Bills : ' < : idered. One Bill Y g ��' prohibited the airport from constructing longer runways >< currentlys, ithout;« legislative approval. He stated that currently only MAC approval is r 0 ?red. He stated )AIV:. hat Bill fair: the second Bill would cease construction of the runway fo<<.> to one y He s ''' . the aiiort could still go through the planning process until the Le•i'''< ure had`time to co .:; I'� ..:<;' ated that he had learned that the Governor would pass the Bi' F ' were sponsored'<; : e'ator Bob Novak and House Representative Barb Haake. M Chair Peterson stated that the City has had a problemwith`"ai >" ise for many years, and considered this an opportunity to control the airpoN:. urther exp € n; 0 e stated that he had received much negative input from the commuz a..;: .,'. f unds Vie*WAIiardView to the problem of airport noise. 4:x moi: .? ' f:",biz..'-0 � M Kaden stated that the official position of*City Co ticil is thaty`are against extended runways, •but there was nothing in the Compreb :::ive Pla regardiniiii; ir aport. Chair Peterson stated that in one o e previos'= pdates. ~>uncil had indicated that the City was to remain away,, of the situat: , e airpo ::.w, .: ere was little language regarding it in the Compreh- t 'lan. Hey;: 4 there was : :'. ;' :uage in the current draft which addressed the airport. :p. Jopke stated th. ,s not. - lhowever, that in light of current litigation, there should be. He stated t .z,:75&:• . draftee < thing at this point but plans to after conferring with the City Attorney`s--. r•Mg'f• < .• •:•.relate language. j . : • -.e . -do •• . '• 1 • u 11' i•ner was in favor of ex.andin_ three minor •-. 's in the State, inclglhe airport located in Blaine. He stated they may not wish to expand ' t aller airports if th-:(consider the possibility of future construction of an airport 60 to 100 miles . . `$" he Twin City s ort to accommodate UPS and freight deliveries. Kaden stated that it had w_rested e meet with the State Transportation Commissioner to attempt to gain his •. ®;•.< a(listed input from the Commission to be put forward during that meeting. Chair Peterson stated that at one time he had lived next to the airport in Blaine, prior to jet travel there, and at that time there was a problem with excessive noise. He stated that expansion would worsen the situation for the residents and asked if the City of Blaine was in favor of airport expansion. III • • Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 Kaden stated that they had not sent a representative to the meeting, but he believed they were in favor of expansion. IF Chair Peterson stated that residents north of the golf course would suffa nege impact from expansion of the airport, and suggested that they may wish to.become..:::.:fir' �® al in regard to the issue. He stated that there were prior considerations for loolaat the Niro area for airport expansion since the Crystal airport was landlocked whic <:v rohibited e >�i k .:, ,; <:!d the St. airport was subject to flooding problems. He stated t' `he could ceders 4,'A". '-wp•' t expanding a cargo type airport in the northern suburbs g's--.; se thele was nothi{'a ,,-o>, < l e. Kaden stated that a requirement for larger aircraft is a 501:��: : runway. He stated that if there were a 5000 foot runway at the airport, there would be { ' ` £'ons in place to limit access to 4' smaller aircraft. ¢ -,...:w-..m41-... Ale Nigillw Commissioner Hegland expressed concern that .: <; nay turn t : w•SUPS airport. He asked if there were any strategies in place to unite 0-lsurr:a:: . 83 . es in o .posing the expansion. Jopke stated that City Administrator Whi'ng and <ty Attor ': :<:,,ng had been meeting with other III City Administrators to discuss the iss : .and tha.*efforts w .6eing made. N tt Chair Peterson stated that seve:';rt years a_o reprep tative of the Metropolitan Council had attended a C• ncil meeting :< 156 an over{l '`"` role in these types of issues. He stated that it would b, E ��od idea ��` � ;� ��,s nueg- discussi i$ ra..< -: re resentati fthe Metro olitan Council to artici ate in the ntiggetioh Hegland askel . } 's cial st: t ,,o other cities was. Jopke stated that Circle Pines attended the meeting in : .tinTAII s ansio ' $;W 'he other cities had no official stand at this point. Chair P ` son suggesteiVDLO e McCartney may be interested in participating in the discussion, but .'a limited role at T174r t. He stated that Mayor Coughlin had taken a leadership role and su•.. ted that the com ni y of Mounds View may be interested in organizing a committee to 04 ag g_ ss the issue. He i `ted members of the community to come forward. 40 4 ated t ppeared the City of Mounds View had taken a leadership role regarding the • �e0 e stated that he would be pleased to participate in the committee. He added that fi 'IRGItatives of the Metropolitan Airport Commission were being considered for re- appointment, and that may be beneficial. Hegland requested an update on the planned construction of a warehouse project on the Onan property. He asked if the adjacent Mounds View residents had been properly notified. III Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • Regular Meeting Page 12 Jopke stated that there was a failure to notify the residents which was due to an honest oversight on the part of the City of Fridley, and that they would be notified in the future. He stated that they had held an open house at the Onan property for the residents along Parkview Drive and th, esidents that 4 are south on County Road H in Fridley, where they had been shown tl '' •plan, csr the proposed construction of a 4,000 square foot office project. He stated$ at ther `tsg ern regarding the p :.: : ossible generation of truck traffic at the access drive on ty R4 "'f stated that Onan indicated they will take steps to direct traffic onto Old Ce :a Road. It i t t .the archit are working on a landscaping plan to provide a buffer, ani_ a consid• ;;'g the"{ : ., fen ' oor possibly an evergreen screen. He stated that as soon as $ ,.lan i esented to `hl ,:r;. dley, the City of Mounds View and the residents would be no ;`; `t\ No other reports were considered. 8. Adjournment :. ."....%`' atc: ouwiv ftp:: ~ .; There being no further business before the` anriin_ �: F_bion, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. N (The meeting imm 0;;tely ad': reed to :;`- • genda Session) • Respectfully submitted, f Rick Jopk Community D`- $ Direc .a ilieri* Transcrib-e x: ' Trish P;, on , . 2r :>• TA\USERS\B • ' B\SHARE\KEEP-IT\WPDOCS\MINUTES\1999\05-19-99.WPD zr ua z{ Yslb""'!eS3e6 0 FORv I KE JUA I RE CERT (MEASUREMENTS SHOWNATE OF pEC/MAS 0 RVE PROPOSED K4002�EF'JEFFERSON C TH/S /S NOT FEET AND tillEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLOT PLAN WAS PREPARED A BOUNDARY SURVEY " COLUMB'� HEIGHTS, MN. 55421 ME DR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION . THAT THIS (612) 788-9769 FAX 1612) 788-7602 N CORRECTLY SHOWS THE PLACEMENT OF A PROPOSED 3 GARAGE SLAB = I LD I NG ON THE LAND HEREON D SCRIBED AND THAT I DATE ma'i Z( i t i l i el" AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVE OR UNDER THE LAWS ---LL- I TOP OF BLOCK = °FIE STAT OF pIIN E TA. tox EXISTING SCALE IN FEET o = IRON MONUMENT BUILDNG BASEMENT FLOOR = BEAR I NGS ARE PER PLAT / 08.9 • = SPIKE SET 10.1 Randy L. rth. L.L. S. No. 20270 c = EXISTING ELEVATION Russell J. Kurth. L.L.S. No. 16113 09.4 oe.a +80e.a f- = PROPOSED ARROW D AGE 08.8 +810 X808.8 -tn.' tOB.s ) • 10.0 08.6 ..}_ 108.0 t08.-3t 08.8 08.6 807.8 -507.8 oe.a t07.8 \` EXISTING +eo 907.8 PO S 89' 24 ' 0 0�' ' E 210 . 18 BUILDING 08.3 o 07.5-607.1 o73 ie..• 5 00 110.4 lt07.a V07.5 1 t;7:81 8 . 07.7 0 07.7 I .49 ' ` te07.8 y O°. Z 07.1 W -607.1 • 2 _}.. +807.3 0 10.8 •10.° p vwi 06.8 481.8OTa♦ o8. '806.7 p 08.0 +808.8 08.6 �0.91.)58.t. 08.4o8.7 v a � 1 t07.8 0e.4 • I �, -• r 11.a 08.0oe. .o7.a 27.0 3 i • 0 lisp 51 °..6 kit, ',, PC�OPOO 1 4 UNIT, ao� 07.7 t07.5 07.4 1 r-----l----i__-� ,--1--- - „ Teo6.7 CO Lc; teo46 X80 +° 7.a "e�oa.e co EXISTING 08.0 Z 1�-- . 06.6 \08. • DUL-PING 0tr0 - -j r- •08. •08.1 08.1 - - ex ► _ _ . . - C _ j;.� C 11.4 F- I L 11 ��`�80 EXISTING 0 06.7 .� ',r+e07.6 Cl). -610.210.6 DOI-PING Z 08.0 -r- +808.4 $+Bo6.0 "' .} -608.° 08.8 I 1-111-1 % 106.8 6.1A 4 •/9 't, • •o .° OT.2 -t08.8 074 8I t.. ° ' ---- •08.6 o.a 06:8 �F . 7 •08.g O_ 8.a 6 --r N N 89' 24 ' 18"W oDa. 8.e ' - '� •• rj5' 4 Z +808.1 -608.1 I 08.7 L. •07.7 s f 13�'s 1 -6 0 07.8 V 108.0 08,4 • -� R it 1 07.8 08.3 3 w 24.0 r'+3 08.8 '0 07.8 L s 9 \ 1 El), L� .19 LS - l__, II '7.7. O r 1II s' • .8.8 I ��,� MAY 2 8 1999 I 1 oz.l�ry /4) ‘ k A \44 T% 07.8 +eo7.81 :� •MS 1�6 1 (. if), .15_P'ARID LOT Q`' • '.a 0 o LOTS 9 & 10, BLOCK -I,, °'•° ��`�° • W . �%' PARKVIEW TERRACE, EXISTING 8'• Jo tyroTROAPe 000'0 874 RAMSEY COUNTY, '1N. DUIL DING on7 e • G - i1i I I o7 \ �II i/il' IIII • o ito I ' I �'I ��GE � I I I 81j SiI I G�`,,,, I /1/' ` --_--� , _ I ,/,... 1/4 T 'REVISIONS ; BY • . ----- P—f • FOUIPLX FOI2 MICHAEL -_JUAM Lo-r 9 BLOCK I I' - K VIEW -1"- RIAC A13171110N - MOUNDS VIW, MN =I M or) .1 .k )' IIS Tg 1 0 „ ._ ,, , -77- --,-7"7- , „.. 4) m DM MO 000 soul Ch ®®® ®®® ®®® aua - — MO ®SIU BM' ®O® k___ Y ma _ nun = 000 _LEE 000 Pili ®=aa❑ _ r DRAWN I'• G k7A1-IAM CHECKED • DATE FIO N1` L \/-\11ION rid r i T L.- 1-11-ii 5 / 16/ 99 II I t SCALE 411 li4 � - I 'o” `li MAY 24 1999 I� I / _ I , O' . 41, E ;By PLAN NO. MV-0Q1 SHT I OF 4 SHTS j 1 0 I • 1 .tom /r �- % 1 Z.—. // - / r ,I/ i \ \. 1 \ \\ ) >/ / / i • / / / / p. A: LVA1iON 1/ 4" - I'O" • • ASPHALT SHINGLES ss xc .• 15 ASPHALT'FELL W/30 STA/2 M I/2" OX SHEATHING PROVIDE SOO VENC- I/2 IN SOFFIT • • f��1 iz TRUSSESi� \ 4F12- 24" OC VINYL SOFFIT ANC?FASCIA �� 2X6 SW FASCIA K44 G'LOWN INS � •� /.63" SR CLGS 1 I/2" SR WALLS , ro VINYL LAP SIt7ING I 7 - 7/16 0513 SHEATHING m STAR INFO 2X6 STUDS 1 . 3/4" t&G OW (3) 2X12 STKINGEKS 5 I/2" f3ATt INS. 1(5" FLOOK Tta 155 I I-1/4X11 TKEA175; 7-'-"12-19 1X8 KISEKS KIM i al 1 j m _ i . 1:701131..Z SILL _ 1 c / I___- 1I a3 PLATE �I/2" CONC SLAr3� ] SANG'FILL AS KEO'n 11--------__ \ ,l I ' I 111 11 41111 LSF 1" LVA-1-10N CROSS SC1'ION r 'IGN1' LVA1"ON J 1111 PLAN NO. M V- SHT 4 OF 4 SHTS J 4....--- _ _____ ----'-''' P•PIIIIIPWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIpppppjl • • / / 26 ' 2" 25' 8" 103 8" / -� �- LF 2 5 8" f 26' 2" / /,. 0../ 6 2 / 4• 6' 2'' 4' f 6' 2 y / / -, 4 �" 1 6 ,---'`- ----r-----1-71-- --L5---r-r ._._.________-S___L___T._.___L5-7r_...._a__._________f=L______r__e__.____T____,-___Lr___ 0 13 12 / 9' 0" 0 t3Eb ,r/ 9' 0"- 0 [:3t9 c31:20 ,F-9' 2" / 9' 2"< 1 ROOM < 1 ROOM 1 - ROOM ROOM - ' 2 _ 12' 0" / / 12' 0„ / = . / 12' 0'' 12' 0" / _ 13E 1� 0 2' 6" 0 -� 0 Of200M ,\ N 1200M \\ N 1200M 26 tzOOM N 7tt;2 1' 1. ]2•-6" / 16' 2" -L 6 / 16' 0" •-6.•� / 16' 0" 16' 0" / \L� 0 III O -� - -, O LIVING c"-\// - LIVING _ LIVING LIVING - DOOM 0 ROOM �� 01200M ROOM O \/L' .i.. ,i, 5' 0 O • • , ...,..F.:::). / t 13' 0" -- ` 4.• / 13' 0" ' 4.. / 13' O'' -- // 12' 10" o ) o ---- ) o = 0 �2 r [3A - r‘-‘,:i-1 KITCHEN GA CO CO KITCHEN---- ' - ATN '-6' 10" / �� COYER ^ -� - _-- 0� O O COYER �__ KITGNEI -� O ITGNEN �,__� _ �OYI� COYERail Eil oo 0/ 6' 8" ,r o co �-6' 811 o o o to ,' 0 1,,•o.. MAIN LVL 4111410i PLAN NO. My-QQI SHT OF 4 SHTS / • 0 • s 101 811 26' 4" 251 8" 25' 8" 26' 0" / / ( / p„ i �y 1 6.6" / 6'O" l ;‘111 I \ \ /- • F� ---� �i-- —_ L A /i L I1Y s' 0" 13 p' e„ ,rx x az coNcr�re —I / ,UTILITY L3 s•o" FOUN17AfION WALE UTILITY b 'y} �/ l 1 / 16"X8"FOOTING / g•p�� / 13'O" / 12. 2'• // g•p�� /�LLITI �12OOM E DOOM ROOM ❑DOOM I 1312ROOM Hw 3'O^ wH Hw CATH 13A11-I '` I3ATN 13l2ROOM I3-12ROOM r3-12ROOM I3ATN FURN /� FURN (\ TURN /� ] c �) FURN 12' 43 2 _B �l2 r -� -�--T11------1 h 1- - f 7 1 f J I (- L -1LN 4113" - 6 - Afir 1 •. 4113" _2'1-8/ • • III 0 i{, ...‘„-;,.. , GAI2AG� I I GAP.A�� z'-a' I 1 o I , I r GAS'\AGS GAp.AG� Ism i-- I I I I t— I I i Elm I 1 ; ' j I r_ I o`\� OYR I 1U •NI2Ar • 190" 6'e.. 19'O" 19'O" / IB'b" 'I 7.6•• J ' 411/ 1--- • PLAN NO. SHT 2 OF 4 SHTS l