Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-1997 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 2, 1997 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 (Held at the Bel Rae Community Center, 5394 Edgewood Drive) 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Commissioners Brooks, Johnston, Obert, Miller, Brasaemle, Stevenson and Chair Peterson. (Commissioner Brooks left at 10:10 p.m.) Also Present: Community Development Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson, Council Liaison Koopmeiners and Recording Secretary Benesch. 3. Approval of Minutes: March 5, 1997 Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve the minutes of March 5, 1997. Motion Carried: 7 ayes, 0 nays 4. Citizen Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 472-97, Conditional Use Permit for Spot's Quick Lube, 2975 Highway 10 2 Planning Case No. 477-97, Rezoning for D. W. Jones, Inc. for a Planned Unit Development, Silver Lake Road & Highway 10 4 • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 2 5. Planning Case No. 472-97 2975 Highway 10 Applicant: Spots Quick Lube Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a car maintenance facility. The applicant, Ron Ostrander General Manager of Spot's Quick Lube, was present. Planning Associate Ericson informed the Commission that the applicant has provided Staff with an updated site/drainage/landscape/sign plan since their last meeting. He added that the applicant brought in another revised lighting plan that day that addresses a couple of concerns that Staff had. Mr. Ericson distributed to the Planning Commission a copy of a photometric analysis of the site and briefly discussed the revisions to the Plan. Mr. Ericson thoroughly reviewed the Staff Report dated April 2, 1997, regarding this • item. He noted that the City Forester had made some changes to the landscape plan. Mr. Ericson informed the Commission that Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 500-97 with stipulations. Commissioner Johnston asked for clarification on the lighting that is proposed. Director Sheldon offered some background regarding the lighting and explained what the Code currently requires. She explained that some of the photometric readings they are receiving are a little high near the property line and suggested . _ •• !.. . .. _ _.- S . - I . suggested. Commissioner Miller asked if there were restrictions as to when the lights had to be turned off on the site. Director Sheldon did not recall that there were any conditions in the resolution but that it could be added. Director Sheldon indicated that a main concern was wattage and spillage of lighting into the residential areas. Ron Ostrander explained that they decided to go to the higher wattage lighting because Mr. Ericson had initially asked that they reduce the number of light standards. Mr. Ostrander indicated that he would run the numbers again if necessary. He added that he has been dealing with a couple of lighting designers on this issue to find a way to avoid spillage into the street and avoid offending any neighbors. • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 3 Commissioner Brasaemle requested that the lighting plan be clarified since it did not coincide with the description that Mr. Ostrander was giving. Mr. Ostrander explained that he just came from the lighting designer and had not had a chance to review the plan. He explained that the light pole that Commissioner Brasaemle was referring to is intended to be a 400 watt bulb not a 1000 watt bulb as indicated on the plan. Mr. Ostrander requested that the pole sign near Highway 10 be left illuminated at all times. He also asked that the back side of his building be allowed to stay lit for security purpose. He indicated that the parking lot lights would be turned off when the business is closed. Commissioner Miller asked about the directional signs and Mr. Ostrander indicated that these signs will not be lit. Commissioner Brooks asked what types of auto repair activity would be taking place. Mr. Ostrander indicated that there would be no auto repair, only auto maintenance such as oil changes, transmission services, fluid exchanges, wiper blade changes, etc. Commissioner Johnston asked if air tools would be used. Mr. Ostrander indicated that they may be doing tire rotations on an infrequent • basis, possibly three to four rotations a day. Commissioner Miller asked what arrangements have been made to get rid of the fluid from the fluid exchanges. Mr. Ostrander explained that he has contracted with Scrap Busters who will recycle the fluids. He explained that the used oil would be piped into a tank approved by the Environmental Protection Agency and would be recycled. Commissioner Obert asked if an oil filter cruncher would be used. Mr. Ostrander explained that since Scrap Busters does not require filters to be crushed, he would prefer not to crush his own filters if possible. Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court Circle, asked where Spot's Quick Lube will • - - A . - - •brought up the Texaco Muffler shop across the street. Mr. Ostrander explained that the demographic study done by CITCO did not even put Texaco in the same category as far as competition because Texaco's primary function is muffler changes with quick lube as a secondary use. Jim Miller, 7980 Fairchild Avenue, expressed his concern with the architectural look of the proposed building and its "70's-type" look. Cathy Bennett, Economic Development Director, addressed the Planning Commission and explained that one of the things that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) is trying to accomplish with the corridor study of Highway 10 is to tie in design standards to • develop a character for the corridor. She informed them that this study will be discussed at the April 7th City Council meeting. Chair Peterson explained to • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mr. Miller that the Planning Commission presently does not get involved with building characteristics partly because there are no standards that apply to the City as a whole. Mr. Ostrander clarified that CITGO did perform a study which indicated that the look of the proposed building is appealing to the public. Commissioner Johnston read an excerpt from the Mounds View Code regarding the criteria for approval of B-3, minor auto repair facilities, and how they pertain to architectural appearance. Chair Peterson added that property owners have certain rights to build in certain zoned districts. He continued by saying that this property is zoned B-3 which allows the current proposal. Chair Peterson asked Mr. Ericson if there were any outstanding issues remaining. Mr. Ericson explained that in addition to the lighting issue, the revised landscape plan must be addressed and easement documents must be prepared. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brooks to approve Resolution No. 500-97 with conditions as discussed by the Planning Commission. The needed revisions of the landscaping and lighting were briefly discussed. Chair Peterson explained to the audience that the action taken by the Planning Commission that evening was a recommendation to the City Council and that various minor details could be worked out prior to Council action. Commissioner Obert expressed that he felt the applicant should be allowed to keep the wall packs in the rear of the building on all night and it was decided that a condition would be added that indicates the overhead lighting must be turned off at night which meant that turning off any other lighting would be up to the discretion of the applicant. Motion Carried: 7 ayes, 0 nays Chair Peterson informed the applicant that the next step would be City Council action on April 14th. 6. Planning Case No. 477-97 Silver Lake Road and Highway 10 Applicant: D.W. Jones, Inc. Request for a Rezoning from B-2 to Planned Unit Development to allow a gas station with fast food and car wash components; restaurant; senior housing complex; and office S building. • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 5 The applicant, D.W. Jones, Inc, was represented at the meeting. Planning Associate Ericson reviewed the Staff Report dated April 2, 1997, regarding this request. He explained that the request consists of a motor fuel station with a fast food and car wash component, restaurant, senior housing complex, and an office building. Mr. Ericson reminded the Commission that the applicant, at their last meeting, provided a tax impact report, market and traffic analyses and that the Commission had expressed some concern over the gas station and car wash components of the project indicating that the City did not need any more of these types of uses. He added that he has received a number of letters from residents bearing the same sentiment. He distributed a map showing all of the gas stations and car washes located within the City (7 car washes, 6 gas stations). He indicated that this use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Highway 10, Area 9, Study. He explained that one of the unresolved issues is whether or not there is "too much" proposed for this piece of property. He indicated that the applicant is asking that • the Planning Commission take action this evening regarding this request if possible. Chair Peterson requested that a minor change be made to the map of car washes. He pointed out that Saturn should be added to the map. Commissioner Stevenson believes that there would be at least 400 car washes a month at the Saturn Dealership. Since this is a significant amount of water usage for the City, he also believes it should be added to the list. Community Development Director Sheldon explained that the applicant is requesting that this request move forward. Director Sheldon explained that Staff felt they could not prepare a resolution because they did not know what the Planning Commission's reasoning was and what points should be included in the resolution. She explained that one possible option would be to take a straw poll of the Planning Commission regarding the general concept of the project in order to give Staff some direction and the resolution could be brought to the next meeting. The other option would be to hold the discussion and Staff would prepare the resolution without taking a vote. She explained that having a vote taken that evening would not result in the proposal getting to City Council any sooner than if it was decided at Planning Commission's next meeting. Staffs advice was to have a PUD plan developed that would include a detailed explanation of what was approved and what further issues would need to be resolved at later steps in the process (lighting, signage, traffic and access, dimensional requirements for building such as heights and setbacks, uses • allowed, drainage, etc.). • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 6 Chair Peterson felt that a straw poll would be a good idea to see what direction the members are leaning, but personally felt that it was too early to make a decision on the request. Mr. Mike Black, Land Use Planner for Royal Oak Realty in Shoreview, addressed the Planning Commission. He introduced the other representatives of D.W. Jones, Inc., that were present: George Winiecki, WIN Agency; Ralph and Chuck Durand, 5-D Limited; Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oak Realty; Brian Ross and William Smith of Biko Associates; Charles Plow, Consulting Engineer; and John Adair, Attorney of Bagly and Benson. Mr. Black presented to the Planning Commission an alternate concept plan which contains four elements: motor fuel station with fast food and car wash, family sit- down restaurant, senior housing with assisted living, and an office building on Highway 10. He pointed out that the alternate plan shows more detail of the restaurant location. He indicated that the restaurant was moved closer to the wetland to take advantage of the view and with that change came the shifting of the private road between the fuel station and restaurant. He expressed that it is • their intention to present to the City of Mounds View a mixed PUD that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and with the technical studies that have been done for the Highway 10 corridor. He summarized some of their concerns regarding the proposal. They consider the 100 foot buffer from the wetland to be excessive, but added that it is their intention to meet this requirement of the City's wetland ordinance and Rice Creek Watershed District. He indicated that they have provided a sidewalk along Silver Lake Road and would consider public use of the boardwalk and nature observation deck located in the southwest corner of the site. He expressed his concern with Staffs recommendation for a public trail along the north side of the wetland because of privacy and security reasons relating to the senior housing and businesses along the north side. He added that he cannot support that request without better clarification and further discussion. He indicated that they will satisfy the City's park dedication requirements in a cash contribution to the City. Mr. Black briefly summarized the market needs analysis and traffic impact report that was presented at the March 19, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting, pointing out that the existing service stations along Highway 10 failed to serve between 34 and 55 percent of the immediate traffic market and that the proposed fuel station will capture the existing void and will not redistribute the existing market. He added that the on-site circulation provided by the private loop street will assist in minimizing traffic and impact off the site. He expressed his desire to move on to the City Council with the Planning Commission's • recommendation. Commissioner Brooks inquired if the service station with convenience store and fast food is negotiable. Mr. Black replied that they have • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 7 come forward with a PUD package, because of the efforts from the property owners and investors to put it together, and he expressed that it is important that each elment of the PUD is approved as a total package. He commented that the applicant is not prepared to move on with any one single item of the PUD. Commissioner Brooks also expressed her concern with the competition between the Amoco Station across the street and the new facility. Mr. Black explained that there is a market of 34-55 percent that is not yet addressed and this facility could go in without infringing on the existing market. Commissioner Stevenson expressed his concern with the number of gas stations that have closed within the last twenty years. JoAnn Myers, 2624 Lake Court Drive, asked the Planning Commission the definition of a B-2 zone and how this development would impact the homes on the south side of the project. Chair Peterson listed various uses that are allowed in a B-2 district and briefly explained that less activity will take place on the south end of the project. Mr. Black pointed out where the roads and accesses to the project are proposed to be. i Rose Nejedly, 2701 County Road I, #227, inquired if all the trees on the site would be removed. Mr. Black indicated that there would be some impact on the existing vegetation but did not have a detailed plan with him. He indicated that they would be providing a very detailed landscaping plan at the development stage. Ms. Nejedly asked if part of the wetland would be dredged out. Mr. Black indicated that their desire is to dredge it out, but that there were a number of agencies that would have to be consulted before doing so. Mr. Black added that by dredging the wetland, they would achieve on-going standing water. Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court Drive, inquired about the 100 foot wetland buffer .. et an -• . •. . • •- •• • • •- •. _ •_. • - due to increased surface paving, from the gas station and car washes entering the wetland. Director Sheldon explained that the wetland ordinance sets out that the 100 foot width that must be identified around all designated wetlands but that the ordinance allows some construction within the buffer area with administrative review. She added that certain other activities would require Planning Commission and City Council review. She explained that Staff is asking to what degree the encroachment should be allowed. She explained that the City Engineer would review the plans to assure they have designed the drainage system and ponding so that the contaminants do not enter the wetland. Chair Peterson added that there has been strong public support in Mounds View for wetland preservation and • the purpose of the Wetland Ordinance is to make sure the wetlands are preserved and not degraded. He added that the wetland buffer was put into place in order to • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 8 put some controls on what happens in the wetlands. He recalled that in the past some development had been allowed in the buffer, but that it was primarily intended to be a buffer and not for intensive development. Commissioner Stevenson added that the reason for the buffer was to make sure any development proposed for the wetland was reviewed. Commissioners Miller and Johnston expressed their concern with the difference in wetland delineations shown on the maps for 1988 and 1992 and asked if 1997 would also be different. Mr. Black indicated that he believed the 1992 delineation would be acceptable to Rice Creek Watershed District because it was not more than five years old. Mr. Black asked if he could receive a copy of a letter the City received from the Army Corps of Engineers regarding this issue. He indicated that if the Army Corps of Engineers is suggesting that a new delineation be done, they would have it looked at and verified. Commissioner Brasaemle expressed that he does prefer to see buildings versus parking lots constructed in the buffer zone because of the associated problems with run-off. He also expressed some concern with the location of the proposed NURP (National Urban Run-Off Program) in the wetland and where in the upland could it be moved if needed. • Chuck Plow, Project Engineer, reported that the information he has regarding the NURP pond indicates that it is not in the wetland, yet if they were not able to use it as a NURP pond area, the other NURP pond on the site would satisfy ponding requirements. Barb McKenzy, 2463 Ridge Lane, expressed her concern with the number of gas stations and car washes in Mounds View and inquired if the senior complexes in the area were being filled. Jim Miller, 7980 Fairchild Avenue, expressed his concern with the NURP pond being too close to the underground parking for the proposed senior buildi g. Chair Peterson replied that he believes the elevation to be similar to the ground floor elevation at Silver Lake Pointe on the south side of the project which also has underground parking. Mr. Miller also expressed his concern with the traffic flow on the corner of Silver Lake Road and Highway 10. Bill Smith, Transportation Planner for Biko Associates, addressed the traffic and stacking concerns by briefly summarizing the plan and the results of the traffic study that was conducted for this proposed project. He described the design of the loop road and driveway access to the gas station/car wash facility and indicated that the County Engineer, Dan Solar's, opinion was that the loop road is important 411 to the project. He informed the Commission that a sign would be placed on the site to inform car wash traffic to not block the driveway and that on-site staff for the car • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 9 wash could help regulate traffic. He added that quick turn-around modifications could be made to the driveway to widen it if necessary. Chair Peterson commented that he believes that this corner causes problems routinely and that the north driveway entrance would not be able to be used during rush hour. He was also concerned with the speed of cars near the proposed area. Mr. Smith responded by saying that because Silver Lake Road is a two-lane facility, there would be more of an opportunity to pass any southbound traffic that may be stacked up and that the northbound stacking will be at a peak of a peak period (approximately 10 minutes of the peak period) and would not occur throughout the entire peak hour. Mr. Smith pointed out that this development would narrow the envelope for motorists and slow down the speed on Silver Lake Road. Commissioner Johnston inquired if the traffic study was conducted on projected or existing traffic. Mr. Smith indicated that the study was conducted using existing traffic. Commissioner Miller expressed some concern with confusion of cross- traffic from Silver Lake Road. Mr. Smith understood her concern but alluded to the fact that Americans are accustomed to driving their cars in gas stations. He added they are aware they must be extra careful and attentive while driving at any gas station. Commissioner Obert expressed concerns with southbound stacking on • Silver Lake Road turning into the gas station. Mr. Smith assured the Planning Commission that this issue had been looked at and that it was determined that there would not be a problem. Jim Miller, 7980 Fairchild Avenue, also expressed concern with a potential stacking problem on Silver Lake Road during peak times. Ralph Durand, 5-D Limited, advised them that both their traffic consultants and the County Engineer have examined this issue and have indicated that this project would not provide a major traffic access problem. He also mentioned that the Towle Report revealed that this corner is the most valuable corner of the whole site and that its proper use would be an impulse, not destination, type use. He added that this is exactly the use they are proposing. He also clarified that when entering the gas station, a consumer would first purchase the gas and then get into line for a car wash, and therefore, no quick decisions would need to be made at the time of entrance. Jim Miller, 7980 Fairchild Avenue, again expressed his concern with traffic in and out of the site. Mr. Smith responded by saying that studies show that the proposed drives will work. Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court Drive, inquired if the applicant wanted to receive a decision from the Planning Commission this evening. He also inquired about the • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 10 Highway 10 study that was done for this area. Economic Development Director Bennett explained that a study was conducted, with public input, and the results of the study would be presented at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, April 7th at City Hall. She indicated that she had not seen the final draft of the study but that it did mark that corner as an impulse corner and that one of the suggestions from the consultant was that it should be packaged as a planned unit development so that design elements could be carried throughout the development versus having spot development on the site. Mr. Ruggles expressed that he did not think that the Planning Commission could make a decision without first seeing the results of the study that would be presented Monday evening. Chair Peterson concurred that it would be premature to take action this evening and commented that there are many details to be worked out. George Winiecki, WIN Agency, 2732 Highway 10, informed the Commission that, in the past, he had discussed development of this site with the City and that the City had indicated that they would like to see a planned unit development for the site. He too stated that this was what they are proposing. • Chair Peterson asked that the Planning Commissioners give their overall direction regarding this project. He started by indicating that he had some concerns with the total quantity being built on the site. He indicated that the uses are acceptable, except that he is concerned with the number of car washes and gas stations in Mounds View and hesitated to recommend that part of the project. Commissioner Obert expressed his concern with the architectural integrity of the project and believes that the issue needs further review. He added that he would like to see the results of the study presented Monday evening because he believes this would play a critical role in his decision making for the development of the • • . • • • • •• • _ •• • . 1 • •• 11 they may experience on Silver Lake Road. He added that, as a resident of Mounds View, by making the commercial corridor pleasant and pleasing, it would increase property values and, therefore, the City Council would not have to artificially raise property taxes. Commissioner Johnston concurred with Commissioner Obert that the Commission needs to wait to hear the results of the corridor study. Commissioner Johnston is also concerned with the amount of building within the wetland buffer zone and its current delineation. He admitted that, at present, he thought the project needed to be scaled back. He realizes that there are a lot of gas stations • and car washes in the area, but if that was what the study recommended, he would Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 11 have to go along with the study. He also suggested that perhaps soil testing be done in relation to the underground parking concern. Commissioner Miller also expressed concern with development within the wetland buffer and the circulation around the car wash and gas station. She also inquired as to what the objection was with the gas stations: was it the gas station itself or was it that we did not need any more in Mounds View? She added that if the study showed there was a need and business for it, would we be standing in the way of progress? She also expressed concern with gas stations going out as fast as others come in but wondered if that should be the Planning Commission's concern. She added that if the buffer issue could be resolved, she believed the project had a nice mix of things, but questioned the necessity of the fast food component of the project. Chair Peterson asked if they had contracted with any one for the gas station and fast food facilities. Mr. Smith indicated that the proposed gas station would be a Holiday Station and that they had had contact with a treat-type fast food restaurant. Commissioner Stevenson expressed his concern with the viability of the gas istation and that when one opens up another one closes. He also expressed concern with the number of car washes and the water usage generated. He remarked that in the summer the residents cannot even water their lawns because of a watering ban, but yet car washes continue to operate. He did not have a problem with the convenience store and a small restaurant component but felt 10,000 square feet was rather small for a restaurant. He had no objections with the office building or senior building. He added that Silver Lake Pointe filled up and a waiting list was created and he had no doubt that the proposed senior building would also be filled. He added that the location of the ponds could be worked out. Commissioner Brooks expressed her disagreement with the convenience store/gas station component of the project. Commissioner Brasaemle expressed that he liked the concept of the planned unit development and believed it to be clearly the direction in which the consultants had indicated for the parcels. He added that he thought there were a lot of things proposed for a fairly small site. However, conceptually, he saw no problem with three of the four uses: the senior complex, the restaurant, and the office building. He indicated that he had a problem with the gas station/convenience store/fast food proposal and was having difficulty reconciling what a portion of the Towle report indicated and the opinions of the residents of Mounds View. He thought the Commission needed to wait for the SRF report in order to make a final decision which he felt could be made on April 16th. L Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 12 Chair Peterson expressed some additional concern regarding the driveways along Highway 10 and the parking requirements. Director Sheldon indicated that with the uses that the applicant has proposed, there would be enough space to meet parking requirements. She added that there was some concern with the office building and whether the building needed to be smaller to acheive adequate parking. Chair Peterson expressed that he felt the wetland boundaries would certainly affect how much development could be done on the site and asked if a new delineation would be required. Director Sheldon indicated that the City could require it as a condition. Chair Peterson added that he was not totally opposed to the gas station facility if the market study proved it viable. Commissioner Miller inquired what kind of car wash was proposed. Ralph Durand, 5-D Limited, informed the Commission that the car wash would be a tunnel wash which would be the only one of its kind, other than the Perfect 10 in Spring Lake Park. Chuck Durand, 5-D Limited, informed the Commission that they could reclaim up to 60 percent of the water used, and other than the rinsing, recycled water would be used so the water usage wouldn't be as great as most car washes. • George Winiecki, WIN Agency, commented that the older gas stations close because they have outlived their use and the consumer today demands services that their proposed station offers. He added that there are a limited number of uses that can support the price of the property and he believed it will provide a viable service to the community. Planning Associate Ericson stated that he thought all of the unresolved issues had been addressed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Obert expressed his excitement with the residents attending the Planning Commission meetings and encouraged them to continue. Director Sheldon asked the Planning Commission what they wanted for their next meeting. She indicated that she understood the applicant's desire to move forward, and that the City had an overall limit of 120 days from when the application was submitted to when it needed to be in front of the Council. Chair Peterson inquired if the applicants would like to make any additional comments. George Winiecki recalled that at one time his lot was zoned B-3 but that a developer had it down-zoned to a B-2 for a proposed book store. He added that when the development did not occur, the zoning was left B-2. Mr. Black commented that he appreciated the Planning Commission's review and • Mounds'View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 13 consideration of this proposal. He added that the applicant is uncomfortable with the Planning Commission's overriding concern as it relates to the gas station and the buffer. He indicated that, at the present time, the items they have proposed are not negotiable. He realized that this was only a concept review and that during the development stage there would be additional issues to be addressed in a more thorough review by both the Planning Commission and City Council. He asked that the Planning Commission, at their next meeting, make a recommendation to the Council so that they can present their proposal for the Council's comments and review so that they could either come back after Council action with a different plan or proceed with the development stage. Commissioner Brasaemle proposed that Staff prepare resolution of both approval and denial for their next meeting. He also suggested that Staff complete as much information in the PUD document as possible and the Planning Commission could fill in the blanks at their next meeting. Chair Peterson asked the applicant, since they had expressed no room for negotiation, if the Planning Commission would be looking at the same proposal at Ilktheir next meeting or would there be any changes made to the proposal. Mr. Black informed the Commission that as they proceeded into the development stage, they would receive further details on the architectural style of the buildings, landscaping, traffic circulation on the site, storm water quantity and quality control and NURP pond design, but added that differences between the Planning Commission and the applicant are far apart. He commented that the Planning Commission was suggesting elimination of the gas station which was something that they would not consider at this time. He advised the Commission that the issues regarding too much development on the site or the impact on the wetland could not or would not be changed before their next meeting. Commissioner Brooks left the meeting at 10:10 p.m. 7. Staff Report/Information Items a. Director Sheldon reminded the Commission that the SRF Consulting Highway 10, Area 9 Report would be presented at the City Council meeting Monday evening (April 7). b. Ms. Sheldon reported that the University of Minnesota Design Course had provided • a schedule of the meeting and they are looking for Commissioners to serve as a regular member of the design team and as an alternate member. Some of the • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 14 meetings are at the campus from 4-6:30 pm. Others would be in Mounds View from 11:30 am -3:30 pm. They would typically be on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Commissioner Brooks indicated to Ms. Sheldon earlier that she could attend the meetings from 4-6:30 pm. Commissioner Stevenson was designated as the regular member and Commissioner Brooks as the alternate. c. Commissioner Obert indicated that he could not attend the April 10th Beyond the Basics Course but could possibly attend on April 24th. 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports There were no reports from the Commissioners. 9. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. A special agenda meeting to discuss the O'Neil property immediately followed the regular meeting. S Respectfully submitted, ik"ait Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director i • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 500-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR SPOT'S QUICK LUBE,INC. TO OPERATE A MINOR AUTO REPAIR FACILITY AT 2975 HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 472-97 WHEREAS, Ken Clark, representing Spot's Quick Lube, Inc., has applied for a conditional use permit to operate a minor auto repair facility at 2975 Highway 10, which property is zoned B-3 and is legally described as follows: Lot 13 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows minor auto repair facilities in the B-3 Highway Business District with the approval of a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding iothis proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site, Drainage and Landscape Plan, dated 3/25/97 4. City Engineer Comments 5. Hydrologic Review(prepared by SEH Inc.) 6. Letter from Applicant 7. Letter from Property Owner(Norwest Bank) WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that met: b. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. The proposed use will be going into an existing building, which currently is in a state of disrepair. The applicant will improve the building's and site's aesthetics, which will benefit the neighboring property owners. This criterion has been met. c. The entire site,other than that taken up by building,structure or plantings,shall be surfaces iwith a material to control dust,drainage and erosion which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. • Planning Commission Resolution 500-97 Planning Case No.472-97,CUP for Spot's Quick Lube April 2, 1997 Page 2 The applicant proposes to remove all bituminous and concrete surfaces and repave a y a11-.-area with asphalt. The lot will be curbed and guttered and will have two drainage catch basins to collect and route water run-off to the Highway 10 drainage ditch, according to existing drainage patterns. The City Engineer has reviewed the drainage plans and has found them acceptable. This criterion has been met. d. A minimum lot area,of twenty-two thousand,five hundred(22,500)square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred and fifty feet(150')by one hundred thirty feet (130')be provided. This site is 27,443 square feet and has dimensions of 166 feet to the north, 244 feet to the east, 219 feet to the south, and 99 feet to the west. This criterion has been met. e. A drainage system,subject to the approval of the City Engineer,shall be installed. The City Engineer has approved the site's drainage plans. This criterion has been met. f. A curb not less than six inches(6")above grade shall separate the public sidewalk from 4111 motor vehicle service areas. There are no sidewalks on the site other than a ten foot section behind the building. The site plan indicates that this walkway will be above grade. This criterion has been met. g. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Section 1103.09 of this Title. The applicant will be providing photometrics of the on site lighting to ensure that this criterion has been met. Section 1103.09 refers to glare. The light fixtures will be hoodcd and directed away from adjacent properties and right-of-ways to eliminate glare. h. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed,pump islands shall be installed. No fuel sales are permitted at this site nor are there any proposed. As such, this criterion does not apply i. At the boundaries of a residential district,a strip of land not less than ten feet(10')shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Subdivisions 1103.08 (1)through(5)of this Title. iSection 1103.08 of the Code refers to fencing, screening and landscaping. The applicant proposes to replace an existing dilapidated fence with a new six foot (6') fence of wood Planning Commission Resolution 500-97 • Planning Case No.472-97,CUP for Spot's Quick Lube April 2, 1997 Page 3 construction. There will be a area at least 14 feet in width of greenspace behind the Ya clbi abutting the neighboring residential buildings, as well as a buffer in excess of ten feet (10') along the eastern property line. That area not covered by building or parking lot/drive access area will be sodded with the exception of that land behind the fence-line, which will remain natural. No fencing, structures or plantings will be allowed within thirty feet(30') of the intersection of Highway 10 and Spring Lake Road. This criterion has been met. j. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered. There are no islands proposed as a part of this development. As such, this criterion does not apply. k. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Subdivisions 1103.08 (1)through(5)of this Title. Again, Section 1103.08 of the Code refers to fencing, screening, and landscaping. This development satisfies the requirements of these subdivisions. Thus, this criterion has been • met. 1. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, shall comply with Chapter 1121.of this Title and shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer. Only one access point is proposed for this site. The applicant will be removing two access points from Highway 10 as well as eliminating the undefined access currently existing along Spring Lake Road. The single access point is thirty feet (30')wide and is located one hundred and five feet(105')from the intersection of Highway 10 and Spring Lake _ . .• . _ .. Co and find it acceptable. Chapter 1121 of the Zoning Code refers to parking requirements. For this use, 8 off-street parking spaces are required plus 1 space for every 800 square feet of floor area over 1000 square feet. The building's area is approximately 1,500 square feet. Thus, only one additional space is required for a total of 9 spaces. The site plan dated March 26, 1997 indicates the provision of 9 spaces. This criterion has been met. m. All signing and informational or visual communication devises shall be minimized and shall be incompliance with the Mounds View Sign Code. • The applicant proposes one twenty-foot pylon sign along Highway 10 with 48 square feet of internally illuminated signage. The maximum signage for pylon signs is 340 square feet Planning Commission Resolution 500-97 • Planning Case No. 472-97,CUP for Spot's Quick Lube April 2, 1997 Page 4 at a height not to exceed 35 feet. The signage proposed is within the limitations of the Sign Code. In addition, there are also two small direction signs proposed, both 6 square feet in size. There will be three signs on the building: the company name (10.5 square feet), an"enter" sign(7.0 square feet) and"exit" sign(6.0 square feet). This amounts to 23.5 square feet of signage on the building, which is within the 100 square-foot limit imposed by the Code. This criterion has been met. n. Provisions are made to reduce and control noise. This use will not create a noticeable level of noise. No pneumatic tools will be used in the operation other than for occasional tire rotations. If noise were to become a problem in the future, the bay doors can be required to be shut during operating hours. Given this stipulation, this criterion has been met. o. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with Subdivision 4 of Section 1114.04 shall exist. The applicant is not proposing any outside storage. This criterion has been met. • No outside sale or service except as allowed in compliance with Subdivision 5 of Section p. P 1114.04 shall exist. No outside sale or service will be allowed for this operation and none has been proposed. This criterion has been met. WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings that possible adverse effects have been taken into consideration in its decision according to Section 1125.01, Subdivision 1.e: 1. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan While this property is designated as low density residential in the Comprehensive Plan, the site has been used commercially for the past 30 plus years, although the last two years it has been vacant. Approving this CUP will continue the inconsistency with the plan. The suitability of the site for low density residential is somewhat questionable given its location adjacent to Highway 10. 2. The geographical area involved. 4. The character of the surrounding area. • This surrounding area has a mix of older housing and recent new home construction. This Planning Commission Resolution 500-97 • Planning Case No.472-97,CUP for Spot's Quick Lube April 2, 1997 Page 5 commercial site exists, however, because of its frontage on Highway 10, which is a typical a ,1. iot in Mounds View. In its present state of disrepair, the site is undoubtedly a detriment. The applicant seeks to redevelop the site, improving its aesthetic and economic potential. Given that this is an existing building, and a commercial business has been in place in this location, the proposed use would seem appropriate. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which the use is proposed. Considering the fact that this site has remained vacant for the past two years, persisting as a negative presence to the area and the Highway 10 corridor, the proposed use should serve as a benefit to the community. The applicant has indicated their intent to develop the property so it will project a very pleasing image and have given landscaping the site a high priority. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. According to the recently completed Feasibility/Ilighest and Best Use Analysis of the 11111 Highway 10 Corridor, an automotive repair or quick lube facility is not listed as one of the uses"not present" in the corridor. However, only two businesses in Mounds View perform oil changes and other like services, one of which is the Saturn Dealership. The case can be made that there is a demonstrated need for this business. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings relative to the criteria stated in Section 1125.01 Subd. 3.b. of the Mounds View Municipal Code: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks,schools,streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. therefore is not expected to create a burden on parks or schools. The use will replace an existing business site which was using existing streets and utilities, and the new business is not expected to increase the demands on public facilities and utilities. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The applicant is proposing to construct a screening fence around the east, north and west • perimeter of the site, which will shield this use from adjacent residential properties. There is a landscaped area of at least 14 feet along the perimeter of the site, with sod and Planning Commission Resolution 500-97 • Planning Case No.472-97,CUP for Spot's Quick Lube April 2, 1997 Page 6 evergreens, between the fence and the area to be paved. These improvements will replace an existing fence in poor repair, and non-existent landscaping. (4) The use,in the opinion of the City Council,is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The applicant will be replacing a closed and deteriorated business site, with a new business and site improvements. The proposed business is less intense, in terms of the number of vehicles parked on the site, than previous use of the site, and it will be much improved in appearance from the used car lot which was there. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The Zoning Code allows for minor auto repair businesses in this zoning district, with approval of a conditional use permit. The property is located on Highway 10, which is the City's primary business corridor. • NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. Hours of operation shall not exceed 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sundays. 2. No sales or service shall be performed outside of the building. 3. No outside storage shall be allowed without the prior approval of an amendment 4. The applicant shall obtain a permit from MnDOT before doing any work in the MnDOT right-of-way. The applicant shall supply proof of such permit before building permits can be issued. 5. The applicant shall follow all approved oil disposal guidelines and procedures. 6. The applicant will take appropriate measures to reduce noise from the site. If noise becomes an issue in the future, the applicant may be required to keep the bay doors closed during business hours, except to allow for the entry and exit of • vehicles. Such a requirement shall not be imposed without an opportunity for a hearing before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Resolution 500-97 11111 Planning Case No. 472-97,CUP for Spot's Quick Lube April 2, 1997 Page 7 7. No sales of automobiles will be allowed at this site. 8. The applicant shall submit the following before the City Council acts upon this conditional use permit: a. An executed document conveying the east ten feet of 2975 Highway 10 to the City as a permanent road easement. b. A revised site plan with text stating "A Roadway Easement has been dedicated by a separate recorded document dated , 1997 and recorded with Ramsey County on , 1997. " c. Documentation verifying that any underground tanks have been properly removed and any results of any associated soil tests. d. A photometric analysis of the on-site lighting showing that the lighting levels at the property line are 0.5 or less, and direct rays are confined to the 4110 site. e. Revisions to the site plan as follows: (1) Black Hills spruce substituted for the three Blue Haven junipers along the north property line. (2) Specifications for the two lighting standards now shown at 30 feet and with two 1000 watt luminaires be changed to 25 feet and two 400 watt luminaires, or as needed to meet item 8d above. (3) Specifications for the wall pack lighting which includes shielding so that light rays are directed downward and not outward. (4) Detail of the trash enclosure showing the type of construction material and opaque, latching doors. (5) The height of the pole sign(20 feet)be added to its description. (6) The fence line along the Spring Lake Road frontage be moved 20 feet to the west so that the landscaping proposed along this side of the property may be planted outside rather than inside the fence line. The fence is to be tied into the trash enclosure. 9. The applicant shall record the conditional use permit and easement document with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval or this permit shall become null and void. .' 10. Parking lot"pole lights" shall be shut off each night after business hours. Planning Commission Resolution 500-97 . Planning Case No. 472-97,CUP for Spot's Quick Lube April 2, 1997 Page 8 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this ir ,,t .- rity Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 2nd day of April, 1997. at,,...__ Jerry Peter n, airperson Attest: Pi/ru)..it, VA.A.L4L-19-7"------ Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director (Seal) IIIII N:\DATA\USERS P \SHARE\DEVCASES\472-971SPOTS-PC.RES • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW SIGN-IN SHEET Meeting: Planning Commission Date: April 2, 1997 PLEASE PRINT ame Address DID YOU RECEIVE A ,/° NOTICE IN THE MAIL �� Pis p,,..4 1 �,�;LM Ct ^�' t 7G/ ' FORSETING? / tvim 7/8tPti'VjZIRC.Ct-4 A.6g 3 4-ii-v-e_. c-cDe.,,cr--c40</ . Please / ► �� :1%1)1,4,4,, i / , 7� f doh I7,e,. Please Prnu 1 1/c�/Z eiliC 67/5://1/ 6-O VD Ike,Ai'1)A t-. E R. i/,;',e4.c.% tr‘di Please Print dr/4_11•' (7 i / 7370 444 V a erirace /V Please Print `� ariu-�1 � t c) Ice _ 1/r• f((. (, T lease Print 41 p/L .0�r2✓-� �,', isles 3� 14-v to 0 H A) Please Pant 07 0/ ,/i.4 5,4 ,1/4/<4_zo A®�2 et K le� �'l t,itl�r�s U ,11e 4t1 �-�", ' e 7(2 K-ct g-i)-t7ewx`,-r a. Please Print i---'i kek 0,_ C-k_eL_s-e_ s� 1u . cki ,i.ouQ__. yes Please Print yeO L c1�—se S2- 4111 � ;6c, Or . P1 Erb -"" r- ,/ /Ec H z pr" fix).r7-6, _ ..-29),V(b-e,e,,L7 AI i/ - e---.4---' Please Print Please Print • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW SIGN-IN SHEET Meeting: Planning Commission Date: April 2, 1997 PLEASE PRINT Name Address DID YOU RECEIVE A NOTICE IN THE MAIL FOR THIS MEETING? Please Print F5f- / r zv 0 1/73/7X- '`t72.27 .M 1/70/Print Piase [AIL' I akiri Piitesr q-a- Please Print 66 EC is a � s a �, ,� / , 41 L1A Please Print 019 A/2PaLly,� 0/15A0e0i7124/5-5 /j/ 62rU) b' .772-07fr.,,S lease Print 02)1 6Din 00L, n s rk 12 S ift06 O S It s r ilAVU /A/N) Please Print Plel.se Print //�jde �p Ss/ Y� I�t,l2nz�� � CS Please Print // c /% C 7/I Co, RP, jl /7/1/ //.2 Ye S Please Print Please Print Please Print Please Print Please Print • y • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW SIGN-IN SHEET Meeting: Planning Commission Date: April 2, 1997 PLEASE PRINT Name Address DID YOU RECEIVE A / NOTICE IN THE MAIL ,>i yyc_s FOR THIS MEETING? Please 44e;,744, 1(-41-0(--e/1-) /141 ,i)j)/--0-11-e-iet4----d C-eles v Ple� Jv «, QST Please Print c//7171 /4«'A 7/ gO C ft1 r /4 V Please Print giliil y6-3 Please Print •2rtll ZcAV — 12 /—(2-NNase Print Please Print Please Print Please Print Please Print Please Print Please Print Please Print Please Print • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Agenda Meeting April 2, 1997 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 (Held at the Bel Rae Community Center, 5394 Edgewood Drive) 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Peterson at 10:30 p.m. (immediately following the regular meeting). 2. Roll Call Members present: Commissioners, Johnston, Obert, Miller, Brasaemle, Stevenson and Chair Peterson (Commissioner Brooks was in attendance at the Regular Meeting and left at 10:10 p.m., prior to the beginning of the Special Agenda Meeting.) • Also Present: Community Development Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson, and Council Liaison Koopmeiners. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 471-97, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning To PUD For Movie Theater and Office Buildings, 2340 Highway 10 2 • • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Special Agenda Meeting Page 2 3. Planning Case No. 471-97 2430 Highway 10 Applicant: Anthony Properties Management, Inc. Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use PUD Allowing Commercial and Office Uses, and Rezoning from B-1 and R-2 to PUD to Allow Development of a 16-Screen Movie Theater and Three 11,000 Square Foot Office Buildings. Mr. Wendell Smith, representing the applicant, Anthony Properties Management, Inc., was present. Director Sheldon explained that, since the last meeting, further research had been done on issues that the Planning Commission brought up and a report was provided to the Planning Commission that divided the issues into two groups: 1) those issues that had been more or less addressed, and 2) those issues that were still the subject of discussion. The issues that Staff felt had been resolved • were the wetland itself and that no construction would occur in it, the proposed drainage system and the ability of the drainage system to filter the water before it entered the wetland and its capacity for the amount of water that would occur. The fact that it was our City Engineer's opinion that there would be no adverse affect on the existing properties around the site and the existing flooding problems on the property would not be made worse. The soil conditions were suitable for development, the vegetation and landscaping proposed would preserve the tree cover and the specific landscape plan for the developed area would come in at the next stage. She also discussed the viability of the proposed office space, economic impact of the project, public safety and the Fire Marshal's comments. She indicated the Fire Marshal would require a 56 foot wide access and that an emergency access be available near Donatelle's. She added that landscaping and screening met the requirements of the Code as did setbacks, building heights and other applicable zoning issues. Director Sheldon continued with her Staff Report addressing the unresolved items. She indicated the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan was inconsistent with the current zoning and asked if it should be changed. Staffs view was that the proposed designation was more appropriate for this site than either the adopted designation or the current zoning, if it is the City's desire to develop the commercial potential of the Highway 10 corridor and add to its tax base. Director • Sheldon continued by asking if adequate measures had been taken to provide the necessary buffer to the single family neighborhood. She went on to address the • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Special Agenda Meeting Page 3 traffic study and indicated that there is a supplemental study to what had already been done and that the information would be available on April 16th. The study would include what happens during theater peak time and what other land uses would generate for traffic. She further addressed the parking issues as outlined in the staff report. Copies of the Staff Report were distributed to the audience. Tom Ernster, 2504 County Road H2, inquired why the specific two theaters were chosen for the report. Mr. Wendell Smith responded by saying that they are trying to present as much information as possible so that everyone can make an objective decision. He indicated that he will do counts this weekend at area theaters if needed. Mr. Smith continued by stating that requiring them to be under the 1:4 ratio for parking requirements may be overkill and asked that the Commission not concentrate on the worst possible scenario and to look at all the information for an objective decision. Chair Peterson asked if the study areas had good public transportation available. • Mr. Smith was not quite sure but indicated that he could find that out. From a conceptual standpoint, Mr. Smith indicated that they could meet the 1:4 ratio. Tom Ernster, 2504 County Road H2, expressed his concern with too much paving for environmental reasons. Mr. Smith went on to discuss the nature of small screens and their turnover rate and added that the profits in the theater business were the concessions and that they are very important to the viability of the theater. Commissioner Stevenson added that the White Bear Township theaters were not a good example because they do a poor job of staggering movie start times. He expressed that he would like assurances that these staggered times will take place. Commissioner Brasaemle added that traffic concerns are a result of grouped start times. A resident raised a concern that we wouldn't want the times too staggered in case the group we were with would like to see different movies. Director Sheldon asked the Planning Commission for guidance regarding the County Road H2 buffer issue, whether it should be left in its natural state, add things to it, or change it into a more manicured landscape buffer. She asked what would happen if the office buildings are not built right away and should the trees be left until the office buildings are started. Director Sheldon continued her discussion addressing encroachment into the wetland buffer and reported that the project encroaches into six percent of the wetland buffer area. • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Special Agenda Meeting Page 4 Director Sheldon informed the Commission that she had met with principals from lrondale, Edgewood, Sunnyside, and Pinewood Schools. She summarized that the overall opinion was that the theaters would have no appreciable affect in terms of skipping school. She reported that the principal of lrondale commented that high school students are mobile and some of them do skip school but the amount that students skip is minimal and he did not feel that a theater in the community would cause more children to skip school. The principal at Edgewood School felt that there would be a negligible affect on truancy. She reported that if a child is a chronic truant, it will not make a difference and there are other reasons for it. Ms. Sheldon also reported that the principal felt, at the appropriate time, that it would be a good thing for children to have a constructive place to go in the community. Ms. Sheldon reported that the Pinewood Principal felt that it would not cause additional truancy and that they saw potential for working with the theater to sometimes use the facility for emergencies (placing children temporarily in cold weather in case of a gas line break, etc.). She also felt that the theater management could cooperate with the schools to find out if they did have an occasional child show up and call the school to inform them. She advised them that the principal at Sunnyside thought the theater was too distant to have any impact. • Mr. Wendell Smith commented that most theaters work with school districts for special showings. Ms. Sheldon continued with her review of the Staff Report. She mentioned that the Economic Development Commission passed resolution supporting the development of the theaters. Ms. Sheldon added that she received a letter from Dana Mandoza, 2633 Clearview Avenue, who was unable to attend the meeting this evening but was at the last -- . - - - , - - . - -. : - : - •..• -. . - . i = : - . wanted the Planning Commission to give particular attention. She also distributed a draft example of a PUD document for this project. Commissioner Brasaemle inquired if there had been any significant changes since the last meeting as far as design or concept? Mr. Smith responded that there had been no changes. The Planning Commission opened the floor to comments from the audience. Tom Ernster, 2504 County Road H2, inquired that if a sidewalk was installed • along County Road H2, would the developer pay for it. Director Sheldon • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Special Agenda Meeting Page 5 responded by saying that the sidewalk was an idea that Staff had suggested in - - case the new traffic study shows higher traffic levels on County Road H2. Discussion ensued regarding the merits of traffic paths and which route was faster. Commissioner Brasaemle commented that when reconstruction of County Road H2 takes place, more than likely a sidewalk would be included in that reconstruction. Mr. Smith commented that he had traveled the routes by vehicle and found that it is faster to make a u-turn at Edgewood Drive rather than choosing to go around the property on County Road H2 to Long Lake Road. Mr. Smith reminded the Commission that they are still working with MnDOT on getting an access and a traffic signal. A member of the audience raised a concern about MnDOT posting "no u-turn" signs. Mr. Smith indicated that they would have a written agreement with MnDOT as part of the development stage. Sandy Simmons, 5041 Edgewood Drive, expressed her desire that the office building be built at the same time as the theaters to provide a buffer. Mr. Smith indicated that Mr. Jay Anthony will not guarantee that he would build the office • buildings until there is a market for them. He added that Mr. Anthony has agreed to leave the area wooded. Mr. Smith also said that the office buildings are the profit center and therefore Mr. Anthony has great motivation to market them. A resident raised some concern with the cleanliness of some of the restaurants in Mounds View and that they should be inspected. She was informed that the county performs the health inspections for the restaurants. A resident asked if the service road would be connecting the restaurant and the theaters. Director Sheldon indicated that this may be difficult since the restaurant site is separated by the wetland but perhaps with mitigation it could be accomplished. Commissioner Johnston requested the sizes of the restaurant sites and the square footages of the proposed restaurants. Mr. Smith indicated that Parcel A is 2.79 acres and Parcel B is 1.54 acres. He indicated that the sizes of the restaurants would be to Code. Sandy Simmons, 5041 Edgewood Drive, expressed her concern regarding emergency access off site for emergency vehicles. Director Sheldon indicated that the Fire Department has suggested that an access near Donatelle's be installed but that it could be gated for emergency access only. • • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Special Agenda Meeting Page 6 Commissioner Miller inquired if there would be access to the theater parking from Donatelle's. Mr. Smith indicated that they are very open to the idea, either by walkway or vehicle, and indicated that he has talked with Mr. Donatelle who is also open to the idea. Tom Emster, 2504 County Road H2, commented that this site plan is the best possible for this particular use and does not want the site plan modified from what had been presented. Chair Peterson commented that the Police Department has recommended that the City try to get a full signalized intersection and perhaps realign Edgewood Drive to join the site at a 90 degree angle. Mr. Smith added that the study would probably indicate that the project could be done without a signal. However, they would prefer to have one installed. He added that they need the City to work with MnDOT but that they need a decision sooner from the City so that they can move forward with the development stage in order to proceed in working with MnDOT. A resident indicated that he likes the theater project, but does not like the traffic situation. Chair Peterson suggested that they go over the issues that still need discussion. They commented that the Comprensive Plan is out-of-date and wondered if it should be amended. He indicated that he does not think we could do much better than a PUD for the site. Commissioner Stevenson commented that he has been on the Highway 10 Task Force for the last five years and they saw the only development for this site is PUD because of the mix of zones. He added that the Comp Plan needs to be redone. Tom Emster, 2504 County Road H2, indicatcd that he has looked at the old Comp Plan and it did suggest that the area wasn't to be high impact development. Commissioner Brasaemle added that certainly a PUD will give the City more control as far as development. Commissioner Obert asked what happens when the Comp Plan is redone. Would they take into account the possibilty for rezoning the property and would it remain the current zoning even if it is developed as a PUD? He also inquired if it is approved as a PUD, would it be coordinated into the revised Comp Plan as such? Director Sheldon responded by saying that the existing zoning and the Comp Plan do not match. The Planning Commission could proceed to make a recommendation on the zoning alone and not touch the Comp Plan. She added that what regulates the use of the parcel is the zoning and • Minnesota does not have a requirement that you have to have consistency • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Special Agenda Meeting Page 7 between your Comp Plan and your zoning. The zoning could be changed to accommodate the project and it would still not match the Comp Plan. She is not, however, advising that be done. She expressed that she thought the Comp Plan that now indicates residential is different enough from the existing and proposed zoning, and that we should finally make a decision regarding what the Comp Plan should say. Commissioner Obert asked if the Commission proceeded with the applicant's PUD proposal, would it then be done. Director Sheldon indicated that the property would no longer be vacant and would not be debatable. She added that the state law states that zoning takes precedent over comp plans when they are different. She commented that it would be helpful to Staff if they had input on whether or not the Commission felt that there was some room on this parcel for commercial activity. The Planning Commission agreed that the Comp Plan should be changed and that rezoning to a PUD could be used as a tool to control and limit negative impact for the property. The Commission briefly discussed the need for signalization and to align Edgewood Drive with the site. The Planning Commission was not opposed to this. Mr. Smith asked that the Planning Commission make a decision on their propsal prior to • receiving a decision from MnDOT. Commissioner Brasaemle requested that they receive some assurance from MnDOT that if this proposal went through, the City would continue working to get the signal put it in. Mr. Smith brought up the resolution from EDC reminding the Commission that the EDC recommended approval of the project. However, they wanted the City to work with the Developer to seek a signal and access. Parking, cross-easements, landscaping and the buffer between the residents on County Road H2 were briefly discussed. Mr. Ernster expressed some of the concerns of the residents on County Road H2 about screening, the overall _ . . e . .• • . •.. I I • -• 11 .• @- residents wanted to keep property values as high as possible. Mr. Smith replied that the City would control the fence design during the development stage. Commissioner Brasaemle added that the residents would have an opportunity to comment at the Development stage. Director Sheldon advised the Planning Commission that they could defer the landscaping issue and meet with the neighborhood to come up with the most acceptable combination. A resident inquired if the homes along County Road H2 that were purchased by Jay Anthony would be rezoned. The Commission responded that they would remain residential. • • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Special Agenda Meeting Page 8 The Commission went on to briefly discuss the wetland buffer and encroachment of the project into the buffer and they indicated that this is not an issue. Chair Peterson inquired about reconstruction of County Road H2 if necessary. Director Sheldon responded that they do not expect that the level of traffic would trigger reconstruction. A resident expressed his concern with paying for reconstruction due to increased traffic flows for this type of project. Director Sheldon informed the Commission that there are plans for County Road H2 to be reconstructed in the year 2000. The Commission talked briefly about installing a sidewalk on County Road H2 if the increased traffic, as a result of this project, posed a safety risk to pedestrians, but agreed that the impact would probably be insignificant. They continued with their discussion regarding sidewalks along Highway 10, trail ways, and installing a boardwalk around the wetland. Mr. Smith commented that Mr. Jay Anthony provided a letter to the City indicating that he is willing to work with the City regarding trails and walkways. Director Sheldon advised the Commission that the City has existing wetland credits from the golf course construction that possibly • could be used if a walkway or boardwalk infringed into the wetland, but they would need to find out if this project would be a priority use for the credits. The Commission decided that the signage issue would be dealt with at a later date. Mr. Smith reassured them that they will meet the sign criteria and added that they are planning to install a monument sign with a reader board showing movies and starting times. Chair Peterson concluded that the Planning Commission is in favor of what has been presented but that no action would be taken this evening since it was a .. - . . _ email" '. . . . — i —• •— i— —— • • and direction of this project. Mr. Smith asked if the Commission could take a straw vote so that he has an idea of their feeling regarding the project. Other than traffic concerns that need to be worked out and given other potential uses for the site, all Commissioners expressed that they are in favor of the project. • • Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Special Agenda Meeting Page 9 4. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, IVYWAL Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director • •