Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-2004 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION May 5, 2004 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: April 7, 2004 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Planning Cases VR2004-003 and CU2004-001 Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolutions 756-04 and 757-05 Relating to a Variance for a Tall Fence and a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage. Address: 2208 Lois Drive Applicants: Michael Read 6. Planning Cases MA2004-002, ZC2004-001 and DE2004-001 Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding a Major Subdivision, Zoning Amendment and Development Review for a Proposed Retail Development Address: 2800 County Road 10 Applicant: The Velmeir Companies APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: May 19, 2004 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session. AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: April 21, 2004 2. Staff Reports 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports \\Trout\CommDev\Planning Commission\PC Agendas\2004\04-21-04 PC Agenda.doc Item No: 5 Meeting Date: May 5, 2004 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance for a Fence in Excess of Front Yard Height Allowances and at 2208 Lois Drive; Planning Case No. VA2004-003 Introduction: Property owner Michael Read is requesting a height variance for a six-foot fence to be located in his front yard. Mr. Read indicates that the tall front yard fence is needed for privacy purposes. The property is at the end of Lois Drive just before the cul-de-sac. The lot is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, is 15,681 square feet in area and has 147 feet of street frontage. Adjacent to the lot to the west is Judicial Ditch #1 which runs under Lois Drive through Greenfield Park. A two-car garage is attached to the house to the west and there are two smaller outbuildings in the back yard. Discussion: Fences in residential districts are allowed to be up to eight feet tall in rear and side yards. Any fence section that extends beyond the front face of the home toward the street (or streets, for corner lots) shall not exceed four feet in height. An example of this is shown in the diagram below. Read Variance May 5, 2004 Page 2 Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. Establishing a hardship for a fence is more problematic in that typically the need for a taller fence is based on social factors rather than the physical features of a lot. The hardship criteria 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. The motivating basis for this variance request is not property based but socially based. As a result, this particular criteria and some others to follow are not particularly applicable. The homes on this cul-de-sac have typical setbacks and nothing of a physical nature presents an extraordinary issue for the applicant. 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. While the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of typical rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, the applicant seeks relief to be able to use his property in a more comfortable manner. c. The special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant indicates that he would rather not install a six-foot tall fence in his front yard however the actions of others have prompted the request. d. Granting the variance requested would 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 the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to seek relief from the literal application of the zoning codes. While true that the Planning Commission has not before granted approval for a tall fence, one such request was granted by the City Council. e. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Read Variance May 5, 2004 Page 3 The applicant is requesting a two-foot variance to have a six-foot tall fence where a four-foot fence is permitted. The applicant indicates that six feet is the minimum to alleviate his hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting a variance to allow the six-foot tall fence all the way to the front of the property could, in any other area, pose a problem in terms of vehicle visibility. One of the reasons tall fences are not allowed in front yards is to ensure motorists have ample opportunity to be aware of their surroundings to improve safety. Another reason is to foster neighborhood aesthetics—tall fences surrounding properties do not project an open and inviting environment. That said, given the limited number of properties in this area that could be affected, a taller fence would not necessarily be detrimental to the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. 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. The proposed fence would block the view of the property to the east, however no other properties would be affected. Property values however would not be impacted by the proposed fence. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and affected neighbors, the Commission will need to direct staff in one of three ways regarding this request: 1. Draft a resolution to approve the variance as requested or as mutually amended. 2. Draft a resolution to deny the request based on the lack of demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty. 3. Seek out additional information to clarify the request. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a particular zoning designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. Photographic Documentation This is a view of the subject property and the area between the two homes in which the fence would be located. The brown vertical line is intended to generally represent the fence. (is not to scale.) Aerial View Site Plan This line represents the east side of the applicant’s property, along which the applicant would like to install a six-foot tall fence. That part of the fence in front of the house would require approval of a variance. The part of the fence behind the house is permitted. Item No: 6 Meeting Date: May 5, 2004 Type of Business: Public Hearing and Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Review of a Proposed Major Subdivision, Rezoning and Development Review of Land Located at the Southwest Corner of the Intersection of County Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road; Planning Case MA2004-002, DE2004- 001 and ZC2004-001 Introduction: The Velmeir Companies, represented by Jim LaValle, has submitted an application for a major subdivision, rezoning and development review of the land at the southwest corner of the intersection of County Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road, the former Amoco gasoline station. The site has 5.54 acres. The parcels are currently zoned B-3, R-3 and R-4. The applicant is requesting that portions of the R-3 and R-4 parcels be rezoned to B-3. The proposed use for the development is a CVS Pharmacy. Background: This site at 2800 Highway 10 is currently vacant and was formerly a BP Amoco gasoline station. Three underground storage tanks, the associated piping and contaminated soils were removed from the site on June 7, 2001. Subdivision Discussion: The applicant is proposing to develop a CVS Pharmacy on the former Amoco site. The plat area involves four parcels, with the former Amoco site consisting of two parcels that would be combined along with portions of two surrounding parcels (collectively referred to as “CVS parcel”). The CVS parcel (Lot 2 on Preliminary Plat) would consist of the two Amoco parcels and a small triangular shaped piece from the parcel directly south of it, which is owned by Michael Fox. In addition, the CVS parcel would also have a portion of the lot directly to the west of it, which has roughly fifty-five (55) feet of frontage on Highway 10, but then gets significantly wider two hundred fifty (250) feet to the south. The CVS parcel would absorb thirty (30) feet of the long narrow portion and approximately 23,622 square feet for on-site ponding. The CVS parcel would have a total area of 95,092 square feet. Silverview Terrace, the 23-unit apartment building owned by Michael Fox (Lot 3) would decrease in size to 53,165 ft square feet. The property located at 2832 Highway 10 (Lot 1), otherwise known as the Pak Building, would be altered by adding additional square footage from the flag shaped lot. This lot would increase in area to 56,313 square feet. The building on Lot 1 does not currently meet the side setback requirements; adding the additional square feet will allow the building to conform to code. The plat shows that Lot 1 also gains a long, narrow strip of land (roughly 25’ by 480’) extending to the south. The “tail” of Lot 1 is unusable space and may pose maintenance problems in the future. Staff has communicated to the applicant that the “tail” be deleted from Lot 1 and added to Lots 2 and 4. Lot 4 of the plat is the remnant parcel left from the original flag lot. The plat as submitted would land-lock Lot 4, rendering it CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 2 unusable unless it is further subdivided and added to an existing lot. The current landowners have expressed a desire to leave the parcel natural to act as a buffer from the new development area, however there is a possibility that Lot 4 could be used in the future for additional ponding for the area. Lot 4 has a proposed area of 36,687 square feet. Staff recommends Lot 4 be renamed Outlot A. The Zoning Code requires that R-4, High Density Residential and R-3, Medium Density Residential lots have a minimum area of 11,000 square feet. Lot 4 (to be renamed Outlot A) will remain zoned R-3 and will have an area of 36,687 square feet, although the lot could decrease in size if the CVS pond needs to be expanded. Lots 1 and 2 will be zoned B-3, Highway Business. Code only requires that the lot size be sufficient for the building to meet the required setbacks. Lot 1 has an existing building that does not meet the side setback requirement of ten (10) feet on the east side. The proposed plat would add twenty-five (25) feet to the east side, thereby allowing the building to meet that setback requirement. The CVS Pharmacy is proposed for Lot 2. The building satisfies all setback requirements and therefore the lot meets the size requirement. As shown on the plat, Lot 3 (Silverview Terrace) would NOT meet the City’s minimum lot area requirements. The Zoning Code requires that there be 2,500 square feet of land for every dwelling unit on the lot. Silverview Terrace has 23 dwellings, thus the minimum area for the complex is 57,500 square feet. At 53,165 square feet, the lot would be 4,335 square feet below the minimum. To correct this deficiency, staff would recommend that the shared lot line between Lots 3 and 4 be shifted to the west by approximately 15 feet. Lot 4 will maintain the R-4 zoning designation. Plat Format. The preliminary plat itself is lacking in detail and will need to be further refined to reflect all of the data necessary for preliminary plat submissions. Further, the general notes indicated on the plat do not match up with the plat, as if the notes were left over form a previous plat design. The following is a list of revisions that will be necessary before action can occur on the preliminary plat: • Name of the Plat • Existing and Proposed Legal description of the properties • Existing and proposed lot dimensions • All existing lot lines need to be shown • Survey data, including measured distances and corner angles • Easement over pond area • Shift common lot line between Lots 3 and 4 to the west by approximately 15 feet Park Dedication Fees: Park dedication fees are applicable for this subdivision, in an amount equivalent to ten percent of the market value of the land being developed. Lot 2 of the plat, the CVS parcel, is the only Lot that would be more intensely developed than its current use. Therefore, Staff recommends that the park dedication fee be applied to the market value of proposed Lot 2 based on per square-foot land value of $8.05. Lot 2 has an area of 95,092 square feet thus has a value of $765,490. The park dedication fee for this development is $76,549 which amounts to 10% of the land value. The City Council however has the discretion to choose another method for determining the value of the property and may choose to exercise that right when they are reviewing the plat. CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 3 Development Review Discussion: Setbacks: As stated, the proposed building does meet setback requirements. Below is a chart displaying the required and proposed building and parking setbacks for the CVS building: Building Setbacks Required Proposed Compliance Front (Highway 10) 30 feet 75 feet Yes Front (Silver Lake Rd) 30 feet 115 feet Yes Side (south) (abuts Res.) 20 feet 21 feet Yes Rear (west) 20 feet 46 feet Yes Parking Lot Setbacks Front (Highway 10) 5 feet* 5 feet Yes Front (Silver Lake Rd.) 5 feet* 5 feet Yes Rear (west) 2 feet* 65 feet Yes *This property was granted a parking setback variance in November of 2003. Parking: The proposed site plan shows a total of 88 regular parking stalls and 3 handicapped parking stalls. The Code requires one stall for every 100 square feet of retail sales area, plus one for every employee. The CVS Pharmacy would have 9898 square feet of retail area and roughly 7 employees during one shift. Based on Code requirements, this development would be required to have 106 parking stalls. The proposed parking does not satisfy this requirement. The Code, however, has a provision for proof of parking. Section 1121.14 of the Zoning Code allows a reduction in parking area if approved by the City Council. To be considered for a reduction, there are requirements that must be met, including that the space must be designated as proof of parking and not used for other uses. In addition, the number of reduced spaces cannot exceed 15% of the required amount. In this case, 15% of the required amount is 16 stalls. The proposed parking is 18 stalls short of the requirements, therefore, in order to meet the code requirements, 2 additional stalls will need to be added and a proof of parking area will need to be designated with room for 16 stalls. Staff is recommending that the 2 additional spaces be added along the northeast side of the building. The proof of parking could possibly be located near the pond area, if that area were redesigned to accommodate it. Drainage: The site would be serviced by a series of catch basins that drain into an on-site infiltration pond. There would be a culvert in the infiltration pond that connects to a larger adjacent pond. The larger pond has been designed to contain water up until the 100-year storm level. If the water level were ever to reach the 100-year level or higher, there is a culvert at the high water mark that would then drain the overflow water to the Highway 10 median. The developer has been given permission by Ramsey County to utilize the median for this purpose. Before any construction is to occur, the developer will need to submit to the City copies of all required county permits. The Public Works department and SEH, the City’s engineering consultant, are reviewing the grading and draining plans, although staff is not anticipating any problems with the drainage as proposed. The developer submitted the plans to Rice Creek Watershed on April 8, 2004. City approval will of course be contingent upon Rice Creek Watershed’s approval. CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 4 Utilities: Sanitary sewer lines are present in the Silver Lake Road right of way and water is present in the Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road right of way. The proposed lots would be served by underground electric and phone, as required by the City’s subdivision regulations. The City’s Fire Marshal is reviewing the plans to verify if the current hydrants on site are adequate for the proposed development. Building Exterior: The proposed CVS building has a 13,013 square foot footprint. The height of the building is 23 feet with the entryway height extended up to 29 feet. The materials used would be a combination of brick and EFIS (Exterior Finish Insulation System). EFIS has been used in other recent projects in Mounds View, including the LandCor retail and office buildings near the theater. The main entrance of the building is oriented toward the corner of the property and will be accentuated by a taller roof treatment and a slight archway. Along either side of the main entrance are nine windows. The slight arch is carried throughout the exterior of the building and adds nice detail to the EFIS material. Brick columns frame many of the arches and help to break up the façade of the building. Landscaping: A landscaping plan was submitted on April 20, 2004. The plan calls for a total of twenty-six (26) trees and sixty-four (64) shrubs. In addition, the plan also shows118 perennials, plus mixed annuals to be added by the owner. All disturbed areas will have sod, including the area surrounding the pond. The City Forester is currently reviewing the proposed landscape plan and will provide comment on the proposed species. City approval of the development review will be contingent upon the forester’s approval. Garbage Enclosure: A garbage enclosure is shown on the plans on the north side of the CVS building. The enclosure is roughly eight (8) feet in height and is located so that it will not obstruct the drive-through traffic. Specific plans for the enclosure were not submitted, however, the elevations show a material similar to chain link. Staff is recommending that the City require the enclosure to be constructed of the same materials as the building. In addition, there is also a compactor on sight that will be screened with the same material as the garbage enclosure. Chain link fencing is not permitted enclosure material. Lighting: A photometric analysis of the site was submitted for review. Section 1103.09 of the Code states that all lighting shall be hooded and that any light that casts light on a public street shall not exceed one (1) foot-candle as measured from the center line of the street. In addition, it states that light cast on residential property must not exceed four-tenths (0.4) foot-candles. Although the street center line is not shown, based on measurements, Staff concludes that the foot-candle reading is no greater than four-tenths (0.4) at the Highway 10 center line and five-tenths (0.5) at the Silver Lake Road centerline. Residential property is located to the south of this parcel. While the foot-candle readings are slightly higher than what the Code allows at the property line, staff believes the minimal light spillage would not affect the residents in that the dwellings are separated from the CVS site by the bank of garage stalls and a distance of 175 feet. While the specifications of the lighting to be used is included, the pole height is not indicated. Signage: A sign plan was not submitted at this time, however, the Code allows properties within the B-3, Highway Business district to have one hundred (100) square feet of wall signage per occupant and two hundred (200) square feet of ground signage per building. It appears that the signage shown on the elevation plans would exceed City allowances. CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 5 Traffic: The proposed development will increase the number of vehicles traveling through the intersection of Silver Lake Road and County Road 10. The developer indicates that a typical CVS Pharmacy generates roughly 195 vehicle trips per day. The site is currently vacant, but the previous use was a gasoline station. Estimated vehicle trips per day for a gasoline station are 845. Although the proposed development will add more traffic than the current use, it will not have as much of a traffic impact as the previous use. While many CVS customers will be use the right-in right-out onto County Road 10, those coming from the south on County Road 10 or from the north on Red Oak Drive will need to pass through the intersection which is controlled by Ramsey County. Even with the additional traffic resulting from the development of a CVS, staff does not anticipate degradation in the “level of service” at the intersection. There are two proposed access points to the CVS site. One access is off of County Road10, one hundred ninety-five (195) feet from the east corner of the lot (nearest to intersection). The second access point is from Silver Lake Road and is one hundred thirty-eight (138) feet from the east corner of the lot. These access points should allow for good traffic flow through the parking area and drive-through. Staff believes that the two curb cuts will provide sufficient access and egress from the proposed site. Rezoning Discussion: When considering a rezoning, the Planning Commission must determine two things: whether the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not it would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this area as mixed use planned unit development (MU-PUD). An MU-PUD is defined as, “Land containing a building or buildings with significant amounts of residential uses in combination with commercial and/or office uses.” Although the site is not being rezoned to PUD, this designation is somewhat consistent with the proposed subdivision in the sense that a CVS Pharmacy would contribute to adding the commercial component to the residential area. Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning would be detrimental to the surrounding area because the proposed uses are similar to the surrounding uses. The area in question is located on Highway 10, which typically has commercial uses adjacent to it. Lot 3 will continue to be zoned R-4, which helps to buffer the commercial use. In addition, this area has been used in the past as a commercial property and it was not detrimental to the surrounding areas at that time. The table below shows the current and proposed zoning of each of the four lots. Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Lot 1 B-3 and R-3 B-3 Lot 2 B-3, R-3 and R-4 B-3 Lot 3 R-4 R-4 Lot 4 R-3 R-3 CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 6 Public Comment: Thus far, Staff has only received one comment from the public. Jerry Jaker of the Minnesota Institute of Public Health voiced a concern that the new development would generate more traffic at an already busy intersection. He stated that his employees already have a difficult time with the intersection under current circumstances and adding a retail store to the area would create additional traffic problems. Public Works staff have indicated that the amount of traffic from the CVS site should not worsen the existing situation, however the intersection could be scheduled for an assessment and could be redesigned with new traffic lights to improve flow if the County feels it is necessary Staff will monitor the situation and take appropriate action if problems arise. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and discuss the proposed preliminary plat and the associated issues surrounding the subdivision and rezoning. Unless otherwise directed, Staff will prepare a resolution of approval for consideration at the Commission’s next meeting on Wednesday, May 19, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Photographs 5. Plans Submitted on 4/14/04 CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 7 CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 8 CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 9 Item No: 6 Meeting Date: May 5, 2004 Type of Business: Public Hearing and Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Review of a Proposed Major Subdivision, Rezoning and Development Review of Land Located at the Southwest Corner of the Intersection of County Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road; Planning Case MA2004-002, DE2004- 001 and ZC2004-001 Introduction: The Velmeir Companies, represented by Jim LaValle, has submitted an application for a major subdivision, rezoning and development review of the land at the southwest corner of the intersection of County Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road, the former Amoco gasoline station. The site has 5.54 acres. The parcels are currently zoned B-3, R-3 and R-4. The applicant is requesting that portions of the R-3 and R-4 parcels be rezoned to B-3. The proposed use for the development is a CVS Pharmacy. Background: This site at 2800 Highway 10 is currently vacant and was formerly a BP Amoco gasoline station. Three underground storage tanks, the associated piping and contaminated soils were removed from the site on June 7, 2001. Subdivision Discussion: The applicant is proposing to develop a CVS Pharmacy on the former Amoco site. The plat area involves four parcels, with the former Amoco site consisting of two parcels that would be combined along with portions of two surrounding parcels (collectively referred to as “CVS parcel”). The CVS parcel (Lot 2 on Preliminary Plat) would consist of the two Amoco parcels and a small triangular shaped piece from the parcel directly south of it, which is owned by Michael Fox. In addition, the CVS parcel would also have a portion of the lot directly to the west of it, which has roughly fifty-five (55) feet of frontage on Highway 10, but then gets significantly wider two hundred fifty (250) feet to the south. The CVS parcel would absorb thirty (30) feet of the long narrow portion and approximately 23,622 square feet for on-site ponding. The CVS parcel would have a total area of 95,092 square feet. Silverview Terrace, the 23-unit apartment building owned by Michael Fox (Lot 3) would decrease in size to 53,165 ft square feet. The property located at 2832 Highway 10 (Lot 1), otherwise known as the Pak Building, would be altered by adding additional square footage from the flag shaped lot. This lot would increase in area to 56,313 square feet. The building on Lot 1 does not currently meet the side setback requirements; adding the additional square feet will allow the building to conform to code. The plat shows that Lot 1 also gains a long, narrow strip of land (roughly 25’ by 480’) extending to the south. The “tail” of Lot 1 is unusable space and may pose maintenance problems in the future. Staff has communicated to the applicant that the “tail” be deleted from Lot 1 and added to Lots 2 and 4. Lot 4 of the plat is the remnant parcel left from the original flag lot. The plat as submitted would land-lock Lot 4, rendering it CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 2 unusable unless it is further subdivided and added to an existing lot. The current landowners have expressed a desire to leave the parcel natural to act as a buffer from the new development area, however there is a possibility that Lot 4 could be used in the future for additional ponding for the area. Lot 4 has a proposed area of 36,687 square feet. Staff recommends Lot 4 be renamed Outlot A. The Zoning Code requires that R-4, High Density Residential and R-3, Medium Density Residential lots have a minimum area of 11,000 square feet. Lot 4 (to be renamed Outlot A) will remain zoned R-3 and will have an area of 36,687 square feet, although the lot could decrease in size if the CVS pond needs to be expanded. Lots 1 and 2 will be zoned B-3, Highway Business. Code only requires that the lot size be sufficient for the building to meet the required setbacks. Lot 1 has an existing building that does not meet the side setback requirement of ten (10) feet on the east side. The proposed plat would add twenty-five (25) feet to the east side, thereby allowing the building to meet that setback requirement. The CVS Pharmacy is proposed for Lot 2. The building satisfies all setback requirements and therefore the lot meets the size requirement. As shown on the plat, Lot 3 (Silverview Terrace) would NOT meet the City’s minimum lot area requirements. The Zoning Code requires that there be 2,500 square feet of land for every dwelling unit on the lot. Silverview Terrace has 23 dwellings, thus the minimum area for the complex is 57,500 square feet. At 53,165 square feet, the lot would be 4,335 square feet below the minimum. To correct this deficiency, staff would recommend that the shared lot line between Lots 3 and 4 be shifted to the west by approximately 15 feet. Lot 4 will maintain the R-4 zoning designation. Plat Format. The preliminary plat itself is lacking in detail and will need to be further refined to reflect all of the data necessary for preliminary plat submissions. Further, the general notes indicated on the plat do not match up with the plat, as if the notes were left over form a previous plat design. The following is a list of revisions that will be necessary before action can occur on the preliminary plat: • Name of the Plat • Existing and Proposed Legal description of the properties • Existing and proposed lot dimensions • All existing lot lines need to be shown • Survey data, including measured distances and corner angles • Easement over pond area • Shift common lot line between Lots 3 and 4 to the west by approximately 15 feet Park Dedication Fees: Park dedication fees are applicable for this subdivision, in an amount equivalent to ten percent of the market value of the land being developed. Lot 2 of the plat, the CVS parcel, is the only Lot that would be more intensely developed than its current use. Therefore, Staff recommends that the park dedication fee be applied to the market value of proposed Lot 2 based on per square-foot land value of $8.05. Lot 2 has an area of 95,092 square feet thus has a value of $765,490. The park dedication fee for this development is $76,549 which amounts to 10% of the land value. The City Council however has the discretion to choose another method for determining the value of the property and may choose to exercise that right when they are reviewing the plat. CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 3 Development Review Discussion: Setbacks: As stated, the proposed building does meet setback requirements. Below is a chart displaying the required and proposed building and parking setbacks for the CVS building: Building Setbacks Required Proposed Compliance Front (Highway 10) 30 feet 75 feet Yes Front (Silver Lake Rd) 30 feet 115 feet Yes Side (south) (abuts Res.) 20 feet 21 feet Yes Rear (west) 20 feet 46 feet Yes Parking Lot Setbacks Front (Highway 10) 5 feet* 5 feet Yes Front (Silver Lake Rd.) 5 feet* 5 feet Yes Rear (west) 2 feet* 65 feet Yes *This property was granted a parking setback variance in November of 2003. Parking: The proposed site plan shows a total of 88 regular parking stalls and 3 handicapped parking stalls. The Code requires one stall for every 100 square feet of retail sales area, plus one for every employee. The CVS Pharmacy would have 9898 square feet of retail area and roughly 7 employees during one shift. Based on Code requirements, this development would be required to have 106 parking stalls. The proposed parking does not satisfy this requirement. The Code, however, has a provision for proof of parking. Section 1121.14 of the Zoning Code allows a reduction in parking area if approved by the City Council. To be considered for a reduction, there are requirements that must be met, including that the space must be designated as proof of parking and not used for other uses. In addition, the number of reduced spaces cannot exceed 15% of the required amount. In this case, 15% of the required amount is 16 stalls. The proposed parking is 18 stalls short of the requirements, therefore, in order to meet the code requirements, 2 additional stalls will need to be added and a proof of parking area will need to be designated with room for 16 stalls. Staff is recommending that the 2 additional spaces be added along the northeast side of the building. The proof of parking could possibly be located near the pond area, if that area were redesigned to accommodate it. Drainage: The site would be serviced by a series of catch basins that drain into an on-site infiltration pond. There would be a culvert in the infiltration pond that connects to a larger adjacent pond. The larger pond has been designed to contain water up until the 100-year storm level. If the water level were ever to reach the 100-year level or higher, there is a culvert at the high water mark that would then drain the overflow water to the Highway 10 median. The developer has been given permission by Ramsey County to utilize the median for this purpose. Before any construction is to occur, the developer will need to submit to the City copies of all required county permits. The Public Works department and SEH, the City’s engineering consultant, are reviewing the grading and draining plans, although staff is not anticipating any problems with the drainage as proposed. The developer submitted the plans to Rice Creek Watershed on April 8, 2004. City approval will of course be contingent upon Rice Creek Watershed’s approval. CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 4 Utilities: Sanitary sewer lines are present in the Silver Lake Road right of way and water is present in the Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road right of way. The proposed lots would be served by underground electric and phone, as required by the City’s subdivision regulations. The City’s Fire Marshal is reviewing the plans to verify if the current hydrants on site are adequate for the proposed development. Building Exterior: The proposed CVS building has a 13,013 square foot footprint. The height of the building is 23 feet with the entryway height extended up to 29 feet. The materials used would be a combination of brick and EFIS (Exterior Finish Insulation System). EFIS has been used in other recent projects in Mounds View, including the LandCor retail and office buildings near the theater. The main entrance of the building is oriented toward the corner of the property and will be accentuated by a taller roof treatment and a slight archway. Along either side of the main entrance are nine windows. The slight arch is carried throughout the exterior of the building and adds nice detail to the EFIS material. Brick columns frame many of the arches and help to break up the façade of the building. Landscaping: A landscaping plan was submitted on April 20, 2004. The plan calls for a total of twenty-six (26) trees and sixty-four (64) shrubs. In addition, the plan also shows118 perennials, plus mixed annuals to be added by the owner. All disturbed areas will have sod, including the area surrounding the pond. The City Forester is currently reviewing the proposed landscape plan and will provide comment on the proposed species. City approval of the development review will be contingent upon the forester’s approval. Garbage Enclosure: A garbage enclosure is shown on the plans on the north side of the CVS building. The enclosure is roughly eight (8) feet in height and is located so that it will not obstruct the drive-through traffic. Specific plans for the enclosure were not submitted, however, the elevations show a material similar to chain link. Staff is recommending that the City require the enclosure to be constructed of the same materials as the building. In addition, there is also a compactor on sight that will be screened with the same material as the garbage enclosure. Chain link fencing is not permitted enclosure material. Lighting: A photometric analysis of the site was submitted for review. Section 1103.09 of the Code states that all lighting shall be hooded and that any light that casts light on a public street shall not exceed one (1) foot-candle as measured from the center line of the street. In addition, it states that light cast on residential property must not exceed four-tenths (0.4) foot-candles. Although the street center line is not shown, based on measurements, Staff concludes that the foot-candle reading is no greater than four-tenths (0.4) at the Highway 10 center line and five-tenths (0.5) at the Silver Lake Road centerline. Residential property is located to the south of this parcel. While the foot-candle readings are slightly higher than what the Code allows at the property line, staff believes the minimal light spillage would not affect the residents in that the dwellings are separated from the CVS site by the bank of garage stalls and a distance of 175 feet. While the specifications of the lighting to be used is included, the pole height is not indicated. Signage: A sign plan was not submitted at this time, however, the Code allows properties within the B-3, Highway Business district to have one hundred (100) square feet of wall signage per occupant and two hundred (200) square feet of ground signage per building. It appears that the signage shown on the elevation plans would exceed City allowances. CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 5 Traffic: The proposed development will increase the number of vehicles traveling through the intersection of Silver Lake Road and County Road 10. The developer indicates that a typical CVS Pharmacy generates roughly 195 vehicle trips per day. The site is currently vacant, but the previous use was a gasoline station. Estimated vehicle trips per day for a gasoline station are 845. Although the proposed development will add more traffic than the current use, it will not have as much of a traffic impact as the previous use. While many CVS customers will be use the right-in right-out onto County Road 10, those coming from the south on County Road 10 or from the north on Red Oak Drive will need to pass through the intersection which is controlled by Ramsey County. Even with the additional traffic resulting from the development of a CVS, staff does not anticipate degradation in the “level of service” at the intersection. There are two proposed access points to the CVS site. One access is off of County Road10, one hundred ninety-five (195) feet from the east corner of the lot (nearest to intersection). The second access point is from Silver Lake Road and is one hundred thirty-eight (138) feet from the east corner of the lot. These access points should allow for good traffic flow through the parking area and drive-through. Staff believes that the two curb cuts will provide sufficient access and egress from the proposed site. Rezoning Discussion: When considering a rezoning, the Planning Commission must determine two things: whether the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not it would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this area as mixed use planned unit development (MU-PUD). An MU-PUD is defined as, “Land containing a building or buildings with significant amounts of residential uses in combination with commercial and/or office uses.” Although the site is not being rezoned to PUD, this designation is somewhat consistent with the proposed subdivision in the sense that a CVS Pharmacy would contribute to adding the commercial component to the residential area. Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning would be detrimental to the surrounding area because the proposed uses are similar to the surrounding uses. The area in question is located on Highway 10, which typically has commercial uses adjacent to it. Lot 3 will continue to be zoned R-4, which helps to buffer the commercial use. In addition, this area has been used in the past as a commercial property and it was not detrimental to the surrounding areas at that time. The table below shows the current and proposed zoning of each of the four lots. Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Lot 1 B-3 and R-3 B-3 Lot 2 B-3, R-3 and R-4 B-3 Lot 3 R-4 R-4 Lot 4 R-3 R-3 CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 6 Public Comment: Thus far, Staff has only received one comment from the public. Jerry Jaker of the Minnesota Institute of Public Health voiced a concern that the new development would generate more traffic at an already busy intersection. He stated that his employees already have a difficult time with the intersection under current circumstances and adding a retail store to the area would create additional traffic problems. Public Works staff have indicated that the amount of traffic from the CVS site should not worsen the existing situation, however the intersection could be scheduled for an assessment and could be redesigned with new traffic lights to improve flow if the County feels it is necessary Staff will monitor the situation and take appropriate action if problems arise. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and discuss the proposed preliminary plat and the associated issues surrounding the subdivision and rezoning. Unless otherwise directed, Staff will prepare a resolution of approval for consideration at the Commission’s next meeting on Wednesday, May 19, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Photographs 5. Plans Submitted on 4/14/04 CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 7 CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 8 CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 9 Zoning Map CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 10 CVS Report May 5, 2004 Page 11 Photographs of Existing Conditions Photo of vacant Amoco building, looking northwest Looking west at the Amoco site PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 21, 2004 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m., April 21, 2004. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Stevenson, Song, Hegland, Zwirn and Johnson Members Absent: Scotch (excused) Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planner Prososki ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case MA04-001 2 Hidden Hollow Preliminary Plat Procraft Development Planning Case VR04-002 11 7717 Long Lake Road The Phoenix Residence, Inc. _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. March 17, 2004 MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Miller. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for March 17, 2004 as Presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case MA04-001 Community Development Director Ericson indicated that this item is a public hearing and consideration of the preliminary plat for the Hidden Hollow major subdivision. He then explained that the City and the development team have been working on this project for a year and a half. Director Ericson indicated that the site in question is 9.36 acres south of H2 adjacent to the western City limits and the proposal is for a 17 lot major subdivision for single family residential homes. Director Ericson indicated that there would be 4 homes within this area that remain after the plat and then pointed them out on the map. Director Ericson explained that the existing pond would be reworked to allow for better drainage for water off of H2 and the entire development. Commissioner Song arrived at 7:06 p.m. Director Ericson indicated that the lots would range in size from 11,600 square feet up to 29,000 square feet. He then said that the City and the developer had originally discussed vacating the Pleasant View Drive right of way but the City has decided to protect the existing utilities and not vacate the right of way. Director Ericson reviewed the storm water management plan for the development and noted that all drainage will be handled on site. Director Ericson indicated that Rice Creek Watershed District would review the site and if there is any question on the ponding will make a requirement for re-sizing, but the City is reasonably confident that the drainage plan as presented will be acceptable to Rice Creek. Director Ericson indicated there is only one street and it is to be named Hidden Hollow Court and it will satisfy City requirements for streets. Director Ericson indicated that the City does not anticipate an issue with traffic for this development. Director Ericson indicated that the development was renamed from The Woods of Mounds View because a significant number of trees will be removed due to the balancing of soils and the amount of grading that needs to be done on the site. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson indicated that as a condition of approval, the developer will be required to replant trees at two trees per each front yard. Director Ericson indicated the soils have been reviewed through soil borings and they are suitable for development with a foot or two of organic soil down to four feet in some places. He then said that the City has a high water table but with the soil balancing on site all of the basements of the new homes would be above the water table. He further commented that the City’s engineers are reviewing the plan to make sure there are no issues with it. Director Ericson indicated this has been a project that has been in the works for years and he thanked residents that have been involved with the project and invited anyone interested to voice concerns and ask questions as the City wants to make sure that all concerns are addressed. Director Ericson indicated there would be another public hearing before Council to review the same preliminary plat with any changes that have occurred through the Planning Commission recommendation. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. David Veenstra of 3000 County Road H2 asked why the pond is being deepened and the trees destroyed to make a second pond. Director Ericson indicated the pond is being expanded to address runoff from H2 and to handle runoff from the site itself. He then explained that the water is captured by catch basins and piped through the development to the first pond to allow for solids to settle out before it flows through to the next pond. Director Ericson indicated that while there will be trees lost on the property, the determination was made to save the trees on either side of the pond to screen it from adjacent properties and that is why the pond was elongated rather than widened. Mr. Veenstra said he feels the City is destroying a beautiful woods and losing all of the filtration that the trees provide and he is sick about it. He then said he thinks it is an environmental disaster and does not think you get any better ground water this way because trees do a better job. He further said he thinks this is insane. Mr. Veenstra asked how power would be brought to his property. Gary Nordness, representing ProCraft, or, member of development team, indicated that they will be working with Xcel Energy on how to place the power and then said that it would be up to Mr. Veenstra whether he wants his power to remain on the pole or be run underground. Mr. Veenstra asked why he was never approached by the developer on this matter. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Nordness explained that they were waiting to finalize the plans before meeting with Mr. Veenstra. Mr. Veenstra asked why he was never asked whether he wanted to sell out. Darren Sylvander, representing ProCraft Homes, explained that Mr. Veenstra did not have land available behind his house that they could have purchased. He further explained that Mr. Veenstra’s home is too nice to purchase and knock down making it not cost effective to add his property to the project. He also indicated that information was provided about the potential development to Mr. Veenstra when the project began. Mr. Veenstra indicated he did receive the paper but was never approached to discuss it. He then said he feels this will destroy a beautiful environment and be an absolute disaster. Gary Mann of 3009 Wooddale Drive asked what the new height of the land would be. Director Ericson reviewed the plan and indicated the area of substantial elevation change would be along the newly created road but the backyards would remain about the same. Mr. Mann asked whether the City has considered a “ghost plan” and the potential impact of this development on the surrounding lots and their potential for future development. A resident commented that he had asked the Mayor to do that and it has not happened. He then said their concern is to make this an integrated plan that does not limit development potential for the residents to the south of this area. Mr. Mann commented that the wetland to the south of this property has been filled and asked how that would affect the neighbors for future development. Director Ericson indicated that the wetland stays a wetland as delineated but, with development, there are ways to work with that and fill it and provide additional wetland in other areas. He then said that the City has been informed of potential issues with the owner of the property to the south and filling of the wetlands. He further commented that there remain options for development of the properties to the south. Mr. Mann asked what the status is of the development of the Brennan property because he is concerned about finalizing this development and limiting potential development options for the neighbors to the south. Director Ericson indicated that there is nothing pending but he has spoken with Mr. Brennan about his plans and been told he is not sure what he wants to do or when. He then said that the City communicated with him information about the fill and the issue with the wetlands in an effort to bring him into this but he was not interested in having a soil analysis done when the borings for this project were done. He further commented that all the City can do is address the Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ issues with regard to the Hidden Hollow plat but the City is aware of issues with the land to the south. Commissioner Johnson asked if someone to the south has filled wetlands without proper procedures. Director Ericson said that there has been fill brought onto the property and that has been a long- standing practice at the property prior to Mr. Brennan owning it. He then said that City Public Works had an agreement with the prior owner for dumping street sweepings. He further commented that he has been told that it may not be good fill and may have to be hauled out. Commissioner Johnson asked if anyone was notified about the fill brought in there. Director Ericson indicated that communication has been made but the issue is that it does not show up on the City’s wetland maps otherwise the City would not have authorized having fill brought out there. He then said that he is not clear on what was brought out there but now they are aware that there is a situation that will need to be addressed. Commissioner Johnson asked if Rice Creek knows about it. Mr. Mann indicated the neighbors notified them and brought them out a year or so ago and Barb Haake and the head engineer for Rice Creek commented that it was too late. He then said that he is concerned that the actions of that property owner and the decisions made by the City on this development will adversely affect the ability of the neighbors to the south to develop their properties. A resident in the audience commented that filling the wetland can affect the flow of water and adversely affect the neighbors. Chair Stevenson explained that water does not flow in that direction. Director Ericson indicated that Rice Creek will be looking at the integrity of that wetland and what impact this development will have on it. A resident in the audience indicated he is concerned about flooding to his property. Director Ericson explained there would be no flow to the south because the elevations are such that any overflow goes to the storm sewer that is already there. He then said that the development is designed to make sure the water stays on the site. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that when this was initially discussed, there was discussion of natural flow of water from north to south but then during the presentation it was said that water would be pumped up to the north to the ponding area. He then asked for further clarification. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson explained that the street elevates slightly as it goes toward the cul-de-sac so that the water flows back toward H2 and is captured in the catch basin and the pipes are tilted downhill to cut through the development and end up at the pond on the northeast corner. Commissioner Zwirn asked for clarification on whether the identified wetlands in Lots 9 and 10 will be protected and secured with fencing. Director Ericson indicated that those areas would be protected. He then indicated that Rice Creek Watershed District has requirements for protecting a wetland with silt fencing and setbacks to protect the wetland. He further commented that the City, residents and Rice Creek would be keeping an eye on this to make sure the wetlands are protected. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether the wetlands show up at Rice Creek. Director Ericson indicated he is not sure what Rice Creek has for an inventory. Mr. Nordness indicated that they had a wetland delineation study done on the property and it is identified in green on the map. He then said there is a separate study that they did for the City to delineate and identify where they were. Commissioner Zwirn commented that it has been identified as a wetland for a number of years and the fact that someone took it upon themselves to fill it concerns him. Mr. Nordness indicated he is not sure how far they went with the delineation but the dotted area outside of the plat is definitely wetland. Commissioner Zwirn commented that anything done in that area will have an impact on people to the south or southeast. Mr. Nordness indicated that nothing will drain into the wetland after the development because they are protecting that wetland. Commissioner Hegland asked if the delineation is after the fill was brought in. Director Ericson indicated the delineation did not extend all the way into the other property but did go to the south to a certain point. Mr. Nordness commented that the identifying of the wetlands was based on FEMA maps and the actual delineation was done based on Sunde Engineering and an outside engineer. He then said he does not know how far south they went but the FEMA map shows it distinctly and that is why the delineation was done. Commissioner Zwirn asked whether there is any kind of protection or assurance that the developer will truly work to save all trees possible, other than a comment that they will do so. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ He then said that a carte blanche to cutting down trees does not appeal to him and he would like a way to assure that as many are saved as possible. Director Ericson indicated the City asked that all trees larger than a sapling and other than brush or scrub trees be marked. He then said that any trees located where the elevation remains essentially the same after the soil correction would most likely remain but those that are located where the elevation is changed will be removed. He further commented that the City does not have a tree preservation ordinance but is working with the developer to save as many as possible and that is evident in that the developer has agreed to save trees on the periphery of the project. Commissioner Miller indicated the Resolution states that the developer shall plant two trees and sod the front yards. Director Ericson explained that a condition of obtaining the certificate of occupancy would be that the sod and two trees be planted. Director Ericson indicated that the Resolution states that trees shall be preserved wherever possible but there is no real protection should Procraft clear cut the site. He then said that Procraft has taken the position that trees add value to the project and they would like to save as many as possible. Commissioner Johnson asked if the trees to be replanted are of a minimum size. Director Ericson indicated that the City Forester would be consulted as to the type of tree and there is usually a minimum size requirement. Chair Stevenson commented that the City could include in the Resolution as specific size for the trees and that type is to be determined by the Forester. Mr. Nordness indicated that the preliminary development agreement and the revised development agreement currently being negotiated states the number of trees and the minimum size of one and a half inches. Director Ericson indicated that Staff would review the document to make sure it is consistent and appropriate. Jerry Blanski of 2933 Wooddale Drive asked what type of long range planning was done for the area to minimize negative impact to the neighbors to the south and allow for future development. Director Ericson indicated that the City has had numerous long range plans and looked at the opportunity of subdividing every way possible including all properties possible going back to 1997 or 1998 with various configurations. He then said that there remain a number of opportunities for future development to the south. He further commented that approval of this development may place certain restraints on the development to the south but it does not in any Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ way prevent development from happening and there are still opportunities for residents to the south to develop their properties. Mr. Blanski expressed concern that the City is building all of these small ponds rather than looking at drainage for a larger area and limiting the ponds. He then asked whether there would be fencing around the ponds and what they would look like and who would maintain them. Mr. Nordness indicated that it is their intention to rework the existing pond and it will be elongated and narrower than it is today and will riprap and sod or seed the ponds. Mr. Blanski expressed concern that when there is a dry year there will be nothing there but dead grass and asked whether it would be rocked or what would be done. Mr. Nordness explained that riprap would be installed to stabilize inlets and outlets and they are proposing crown vegetation for seeding as it is used a lot on highways for controlling erosion. He then explained that crown vegetation is a low growing vegetation that is always green and it works well. He further commented that there is no intention to fence the pond. Mr. Blanski expressed concern for kids playing on or near the ponds and the safety of that. He then said he is concerned what the ponds would look like and whether there are easements or if they are on private property. Mr. Nordness indicated the ponds are on private property but there would be easements to maintain them. Mr. Blanski asked whether the water would flow over or under ground between the ponds. Mr. Nordness indicated it would be over ground in places, under ground in others. Chair Stevenson indicated he had found a discrepancy on the preliminary plat on the vicinity plat the road is marked with an incorrect name. Mr. Nordness indicated that is being corrected. Commissioner Song asked whether the City has considered a significant rainfall and whether the system as designed can handle it. She then said that when it rains hard in her neighborhood the water flows over the curb and to the backyard when the storm sewer is full. Mr. Nordness indicated the City Engineer and Bonestroo has designed this for a 100 year flood incident but if there is something beyond a 100 year flood there would be overflow into the existing storm sewer system. Judy Witbeck of 3009 County Road H2 asked whether anyone looked at moving the road to its junction with Spring Lake Road rather than having it offset. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Nordness indicated it was originally planned to have that road come through and line up directly with the street but the gentlemen who owns the property did not want to sell it so that made it not possible to do so. A resident asked whether there have been any protections considered to keep vehicles from sliding into the pond during the winter. Mr. Nordness indicated they would work with the City and address any potential danger issues but the pond does belong to the City. Mr. Blanski asked whether the radius of the curb could be looked into to allow more room to make a right turn out onto H2 because at Knollwood your front end ends up in oncoming traffic if you are not very careful. Mr. Nordness indicated that the street would be a public street and built to City standards. Director Ericson indicated that there have been issues with the reconstruction of H2 and he will discuss the matter with the Public Works Director. Mr. Mann commented that he is concerned that approval of this development limits the potential for development to the south and he would like the City to consider holding off on approval for further information and analysis of the development potential to the south. Mr. Nordness commented that from their standpoint they feel they have gone above and beyond what is required by most developers in considering all possible scenarios. Mr. Mann agreed that it seems the developer has done what is expected and the development sounds like it will be a quality development but, once the decisions are made on this development their ability to develop is limited and they would like the City to consider a larger plan for the entire area rather than just this parcel. Director Ericson indicated that he would like to see more areas developed to bring more housing units and a larger tax base to the City, but there are those residents who feel that larger lots and trees make Mounds View a nice community to live in and they are not interested in developing their properties. He then said that this development will impact future development to the south but there remain opportunities to develop. A resident in the audience asked if there is access so they would not be landlocked. Director Ericson indicated there is the Pleasant View Drive easement on the western portion of the property and, in speaking with Mr. Brennan, he would be possibly interested in dedicating an additional 30 feet for a small cul-de-sac, so there are opportunities. Paul Vik of 2940 County Road H2 said he feels it is a shame that this area will be torn down as there are a lot of old trees and the area is very cool. He then recommended that the Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioners take a walk back there so they are aware of what the City is losing. He further commented that he was offered a buy out but likes his lot and wants to stay in Mounds View. Mr. Vik asked the Commission to be very careful that all things are considered especially with ponding and drainage and the overall effect that this development will have on future development to the south before approving it. He further commented that this would landlock his property for future development, but he wants to stay where he is. Chair Stevenson indicated that his wife grew up in the area so he knows the area and it is very nice. Commissioner Johnson commented that when a development is done the developer is responsible for the water on the site and it has to be contained on site. He then said that he feels confident that with three engineering firms things are being handled properly. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he is skeptical about the entire thing and he has some serious reservations. He then said he would like to table this to the next meeting to allow for more information and further clarifications on how this development will impact the people to the south. Commissioner Zwirn said he feels that after the fact is too hard to deal with to rectify anything and he would like to have the information first and make the decisions based on the professional advice. Commissioner Johnson indicated the resolution says that all the approvals are contingent upon Rice Creek and the engineers. Chair Stevenson indicated that there is not much more information that would become available as most has already been received. Economic Development Coordinator Backman confirmed that most of the information has been obtained by the City. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 754-04, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Hidden Hollow Preliminary Plat. Director Ericson read the stipulations for approval and indicated that Staff would consult with the City Forester concerning the tree requirements. Ayes – 5 Nays – 1(Zwirn) Motion carried. Director Ericson indicated that this matter is scheduled for City Council action on May 10, 2004 and residents will be noticed of the meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case VR04-002 Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Planner Prososki indicated that the prevailing setback is 41 feet on this block and the applicant has requested a reduced front yard setback of 32 feet to allow for the construction of a state licensed residential facility operated by The Phoenix Residence. Planner Prososki indicated the dimensions of the lot and the additional setback requirements of the lot do make it difficult to build on. She then said that Staff received one letter in opposition and that was provided to Commissioners at this meeting. Commissioner Johnson asked whether everyone was notified. Planner Prososki indicated that all residents within 350 feet were notified by mail and it was noticed in the paper. Chair Stevenson thanked the applicant for making changes from 11 feet to a 9 foot variance. He then asked Staff to address the letter of opposition and why the City should allow the variance to allow the building forward of the 41 feet. Planner Prososki indicated that Staff feels there is a hardship due to the smaller lot dimensions and prevailing setbacks and it makes it somewhat difficult to build on the lot without a variance. Chair Stevenson explained that a traditional setback would be 30 feet but this block has 41 feet. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Song/Miller. To Approve Resolution 755-04, a Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow for a Thirty-Two Foot Front Yard Setback for a New Home at 7717 Long Lake Road. Ayes – 5 Nays – 1(Zwirn) Motion carried. Commissioner Song asked what The Phoenix Residence does. The representative from The Phoenix Residence indicated that they serve persons age 18 years and older with physical and development disabilities. She then provided information on the organization to the Commissioners. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he had voted in opposition to the variance because he was in opposition to the other two on the street and he wished to remain consistent. He then said that he has nothing against The Phoenix Residence but feels that, aesthetically, it throws off the look of the entire block. Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: May 5, 2004 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.