Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-1997 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting April 16, 1997 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:05 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members present: Commissioners Brooks, Johnston, Obert, Brasaemle, Stevenson and Chair Peterson (Commissioner Brooks left the meeting at 9:55 p.m., Commissioner Miller had an excused absence.) Also Present: Community Development Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson, and Recording Secretary Benesch. Council Liaison Koopmeiners arrived at 10:10 p.m. • 3. Approval of Minutes: March 19, 1997 Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brasaemle to approve the minutes of March 19, 1997, as amended. Motion Carried: 6 ayes, 0 nays 4. Citizen Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no resident requests or comments from the floor. Index to Minutes Page Resolution No. 504-97, Modification No. 1 to the Project Plan for Mounds View Economic Development Project and Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 (Redevelopment) 2 Planning Case No. 471-97, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning 4 To PUD For Movie Theater and Office Buildings for Anthony Properties, 2340 Highway 10 Planning Case No. 477-97, Rezoning for D. W. Jones, Inc. for a • Planned Unit Development, Silver Lake Road & Highway 10 13 41 Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 2 5. Consideration of Resolution No. 504-97 Regarding Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 (Redevelopment) Community Development Director Sheldon explained that this request was before the Planning Commission because of a State Law requirement. She continued by explaining that the City is proposing to form a new tax increment financing district called District No. 4 which would include the property where the Bel-Rae is located. She explained that the City has areas where money from tax increment financing can be spent and that the City has three districts in which tax increment finance district money is produced and this would be the fourth district. She indicated that the Planning Commission is being asked to determine whether or not the formation of this district and the addition of the income stream into the overall development plan for Mounds View is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She added that the reason for forming this district is to capture the increment created by V.B. Diggs and use that increment to help finance the community center project. She explained that part of the project will include V. B. Diggs, which is a private • business and that this business is expected to cause the property to increase in property value. It will continue to be a tax-paying entity but the rest of the project will not be since it is a public project. She informed the Commission that improvements that would be eligible for use of the tax increment include: construction of the parking lot, installation of utilities, and renovation of the building. She indicated that the Planning Commission may want to add a paragraph to the resolution that they find this modification consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as follows: "The creation of TIF District No. 4 would allow the development of a private business which would, in turn, produce revenues to assist in the installation of public improvements and renovation of a building intended for a community center for Mounds View The Mounds View Comprehensive Plan has divided the City into 12 planning districts and the proposed TIF District No. 4 is in District No. 1. The Comprehensive Plan envisions the creation of a city center where there will be a strong, vital identifying community focal point in this district. This district is intended to be a mixture of commercial; public; low, medium and high density residential and open space uses. The proposed project is consistent with this idea." She added that it is Staffs recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 504-97. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve Resolution No. 504-97 as amended. Commissioner Brasaemle added that he thought this was a good idea for Mounds View. Commissioner Johnston inquired if there were 12 development districts in • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 3 the City. Director Sheldon explained that there are 12 planning districts in the Comprehensive Plan which are separate from the TIF districts. Motion Carried: 6 ayes, 0 nays 6. 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 and Mr. Jay Anthony, representing the applicant, Anthony • Properties Management, Inc., were present. Director Sheldon explained that the Planning Commission has two actions before it; the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive plan and a request for a rezoning from B-1 and R-2 to PUD for commercial uses. She began with the Comprehensive Plan amendment and indicated that the City's Code does not have specific procedures for Comp Plan amendments. She indicated that staff created a set of criteria that the Planning Commission could use to determine whether or not the designation on the property should be changed. She indicated that there have been a series of attempts to amend the Comp Plan and that there has been a range of designations considered including highway commercial, mixed use, low and medium density residential, office park, corporate headquarters office, or townhomes. The decision before the Planning Commission was whether or not to recommend to City Council to change the medium density residential designation to mixed use that would anticipate both commercial or residential uses. She read aloud the five goals noted on Pages 2 and 3 of Resolution No. 502-97. She noted as a general comment that this particular project and the Comp Plan amendment have raised several important issues: One is whether or not you can introduce a fairly intense commercial development onto a piece of land that is bordered by a major highway but also bordered by a low density single family neighborhood. Staff proposed that the designation make it clear that a portion of the property is . Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 4 suitable for higher intensity purposes and that a portion is not. She explained that any designation made to the property for the Comp Plan would remain on the land whether the theater project goes forward or not. Mr. Jay Anthony inquired if the mixed use/lower intensity corresponds with the area shown currently for the offices. Director Sheldon responded that it did. She explained that using two designations would address compatibility of uses. She added that, in terms of maintaining, and where necessary upgrading land uses and environmental quality, staff wanted to designate the wetland and indicate that it is an area to be preserved. Staff also is suggesting that the City take advantage of the commercial possibilities of the property with its proximity to Highway 10 by switching it from just residential to mixed use. She stated that Goal No. 3 addresses the preservation and protection of property values. She explained the buffer is the technique they would use in order to make sure the neighborhood does not experience impacts that would be detrimental. She went on to note that Goal No. 4 addressed compatibility with features of the natural environment, i.e. designating the wetland. Goal No. 5 is to prevent development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of services. She added that there is water, sewer and utilities in the surrounding streets so that urban type uses could be accommodated and the checking of parking and access would come with the development review. She explained that this would become part of the Comp Plan if the amendment is adopted. She briefly summarized the description of District No. 1 which is outlined in Exhibit 2 of the resolution which explains that this District is intended to become the City Center, or focal point for the community. She explained, in summary, that staff has prepared a resolution which provides support for the change in the land use and amends the district description and the map in a way that would accommodate this development. The decision on the zoning is separate, but the Comp Plan amendment allows enough room for the proposed development to be considered consistent. She informed the Commission that she thought it was important for them to feel comfortable with this, because whether or not the proposed development is approved, the new designation will continue to be part of the plan. She added that it is Staffs suggestion that the Planning Commission recommend this amendment for approval by the City Council. • • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 5 Chair Peterson commented that the proposed changes are consistent with past reviews of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Brooks commented that she felt the provisions added for dedication of land for trail systems and revisions to the description of District 1 of the Comp Plan are necessary. Director Sheldon read the addition aloud. Commissioner Stevenson commented that the section regarding commercial and medium density is a key portion because it ties in with the new designation. Commissioner Johnston inquired if Exhibits 1 and 2 would become part of the Comp Plan. Director Sheldon explained that if the Council adopts the resolution, the exhibits would be put into the Comp Plan. Mr. Jay Anthony indicated that they have two out-parcels that are a part of their total PUD which are intended for restaurant development. He was concerned that he would have to go through the entire PUD process for each of the restaurant developments. Director Sheldon indicated that they would need to amend the PUD ,• to add those uses and it would be a public hearing process. Mr. Anthony commented that he hoped approval could be obtained at staff level. Director Sheldon explained that he would not have to go through a Comp Plan amendment process and that this issue was better addressed when they discussed the rezoning part of the request. Commissioner Johnston inquired if this was the only wording for District 1 in the Comp Plan because he knows there is something else being talked about for District 1 which is not addressed specifically in the proposed wording. Director Sheldon indicated that the wording reflects the fact that the primary purpose of the Comp Plan is to envision what will happen in the future so vacant land tends to be the focus as opposed to going parcel by parcel and discussing existing development. Commissioner Obert inquired who will be responsible for the trailways system if it is approved for the Comp Plan. Director Sheldon indicated that the Parks and Recreation Commission notes where the trail systems cross over land being considered for development, and the location of trails is established at the development plan stage. If they do not require Planning Commission review, other techniques may need to be used to relay this information. She added that it could be the responsibility of the Developer if that is what the City decides. 111 Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 6 Chair Peterson commented that the City is looking at a specific development request and a specific rezoning and removing any inconsistency in the Comp Plan. Commissioner Johnston inquired when the Comp Plan needed to be updated. Director Sheldon indicated that it needed to be to Met Council by the end of 1998. The Planning Commission discussed some of their concerns with the wording of the proposed District 1 narrative. Director Sheldon explained that the wording indicates what the City would like to achieve but that there are many different ways to implement it. She summarized the intention of the wording, explaining that once the City receives a development request, the City wants to make sure that sidewalks get constructed that connect into the larger trail system. Mr. Anthony requested that the language be softened that states, "... development should include provisions for dedication of land..." to perhaps, "...consideration should be given to dedication of land...". He commented that a developer could have a situation where you could not dedicate land. Chair Peterson responded by saying that the language does say, "should include" and it doesn't say"must • include". Director Sheldon suggested a revision relative to general use patterns to say that "commercial and medium density residential should be located in proximity to Highway 10". She specifically noted that medium density be changed to higher density because she does not feel in is appropriate to place single family houses on Highway 10. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave in the wording proposed for District 1 for now and that they could make any necessary revisions when they update the Comp Plan. Motion/Carried: Stevenson/Brasaemle to adopt Resolution No. 502-97 entitled, "Resolution Recommending Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the O'Neil Property, 2430 Highway 10; Planning Case No. 471-97", including Exhibit 2 as amended. Motion Carried: 6 ayes, 0 nays Director Sheldon continued with the second part of the request relating to rezoning and reviewed the Staff report dated April 10, 1997. She began by explaining that • this request is for rezoning of the O'Neil property from B-1 and R-2 to PUD for commercial purposes. She briefly reviewed the Staff Report which summarized the • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 7 discussion that occurred at the last Planning Commission meeting where issues were reviewed and consensus by the Planning Commission was reached. She did not review the Comprehensive Plan Amendment because that was just discussed and she noted that traffic and access would be discussed last. She reviewed parking, the buffer along County Road H2, the degree of encroachment into the wetland buffer, what possible improvements should be done with the proposal regarding accel and decel lanes and walkways, signage, the size of the theater complex, concerns of surrounding schools, and a comparison with the existing zoning. She indicated that the Planning Commission had arrived at agreement on these issues at the last meeting. She noted that traffic and access were deferred to this meeting because the City just received the supplemental traffic report. She indicated that the supplemental report was provided to the Planning Commission and the traffic consultants, Charlene Zimmer and Nancy Heuer of SRF Consulting, were present to answer any questions. She added that the new diagram included in the report showed the traffic count expected for the daily volume, the peak hour for the streets, and the peak hour for the generator(i.e. the theater). The new diagram also showed the estimated number of U-turns that are expected to occur during the peak hour for the generator at the Long Lake Road/Highway 10 • intersection, the Edgewood Drive break in the median, and the County Road H2/ Highway 10 intersection. The supplemental traffic report also showed how the consultants made adjustments to the traffic distribution based on a region-wide model instead using the current traffic distribution on adjacent streets. This change was in response to questions about the influence of the Long Lake Road/Silver Lake Road/1-694 system since the theaters are expected to be a regional draw. It showed that the volumes on Highway 10 are reduced and more traffic travels west and south using County Road H2 and Long Lake Road. More traffic goes through the County Road H2/Long Lake Road intersection, and the level of service would go from "B" to "C" during the peak hour of the street. This change in level of service means an additional one-second delay at that intersection. She added that the consultants were asked by the Planning Commission to look at alternative land uses in the report; using existing zoning or the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and other possible land uses that have been considered. She indicated that five scenarios were used: existing zoning (duplexes on H-2 and neighborhood business on the rest of the property), the Comprehensive Plan Designation (single family homes on the entire parcel), townhomes, apartments and corporate office/offices on the entire parcel. She reported that the use producing the highest amount of traffic during the peaks was the existing zoning. She added that the residential scenarios indicated less traffic would be produced than the current proposal. • • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 8 She added that the consultants were also asked to research what was the peak of the generator. It was found to be from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. She added that the intersections were re-tested using this peak and there is enough capacity for the U- turns to be accommodated. She briefly explained, for the benefit of the audience, what a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district is: the approval of a specific development that has a plan and description that goes with it that controls the kind of development that occurs with certain stipulations. She indicated that there are three stages for the PUD process: the conceptual stage (where they are right now), the development stage (public hearings will be held again at this stage by the Planning Commission and City Council) and the final plan which is an administrative review. Director Sheldon continued by briefly describing items 1-23 of the Planned Unit Development document (Exhibit 1 of Ordinance No. 598). She suggested that another item be added: that all utilities be placed underground. She noted that if the PUD document is approved by the City Council, it would be recorded against the property so that the controls listed would continue to govern the property and would be attached to the PUD designation. She added that it is Staff's • recommendation, with these stipulations in place, that the Planning Commission recommend that the PUD be approved and then forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Stevenson complimented Staff for the way the information for this request was presented. Chair Peterson agreed and commented that it was very well organized and that it would be difficult to handle this much detail without such thorough reports. Mr. Anthony inquired about the landscaping (#10 of the Planned Unit Development) and the requirement that the property owner shall be made available a minimum of 15 feet along the Highway 10 frontage for the City or City's agent to implement the design theme. Mr. Anthony was concerned with the footage the site plan provided for this area. Director Sheldon indicated that their proposed setback from the right-of-way to the parking lot is 30 feet. Chair Peterson asked the applicant if there had been any changes with the plan since their last discussion. Mr. Anthony indicated that there had not been any changes. The Planning Commission continued with discussion on the traffic study. • Commissioner Stevenson commented that the report verified a hunch the Planning Commission had about the current zoning versus the proposal and that • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 9 the way it is zoned now actually produced more traffic than the current proposal. The difference is when the peak for developed property would occur. The peak for the different developments would occur at different times, but the overall impact is less. He was also concerned with the traffic impact on Long Lake Road and County Road H2 and how it compares to the previous study. Charlene Zimmer, Principal for SRF Consulting, addressed the question, indicating that the only changes that have occurred in the study had to do with the distribution of traffic on Long Lake Road and County Road H2 that resulted because they used the regional traffic forecasting model to distribute the trips. She briefly reviewed the results as noted in the revised traffic study. She explained that what occurred is that the volumes did increase on County Road H2 and Long Lake Road from the last report from five to nine percent. She noted that County Road H2 would have an increase in traffic of 11 percent daily. The Planning Commission and SRF Consulting discussed various traffic routes and distribution. 1111 Commissioner Johnston expressed some concern with the safety of U-turns and indicated he did not see it addressed in the study. Ms. Zimmer indicated that two of the three intersections are signalized which manages the traffic flow and, therefore, reduces the number of conflicts. Chair Peterson brought up the suggestion by the Police Department to align Edgewood Drive with the front entrance of the theater and signalize it. He asked Ms. Zimmer how this would affect the traffic flow. Ms. Zimmer indicated that they had not done a traffic flow analysis along Highway 10 with Edgewood Drive being a signalized intersection. She believed, however, that the level of congestion, to a great extent, was managed by how the signals are timed and how they progress. She expressed that one of the concerns with adding a signal would be that it would complicate the progression of traffic and studies would need to be done to determine whether or not a signal could be effectively added on Highway 10. With regard to the flow of traffic, the opinion of the consultant was, that it was better to limit the theater entrance to right-in, right-out because it helps on a high volume road such as Highway 10. Regarding left turns, the consultant added that it is better to have a four-legged intersection and it is better to have it signalized. Ms. Zimmer expressed some concerns with the number of access points because the more access points you have the more impact you have on safety and traffic flow. In terms of getting in and out of the site, a signalized, four-legged intersection is the • desirable solution. But in terms of the traffic flow on Highway 10, there is a . Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 10 question that hasn't been answered because you have to look at the signal progression along that corridor before you can make that determination. Discussion continued regarding the traffic study. Ms. Zimmer made a comment that most people who live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed theater would use the secondary streets instead of using the major thoroughfares to go to the theater. Commissioner Stevenson asked if MnDOT would be likely to change the signal pattern of the existing signals in the area during peak theater times. Ms. Zimmer indicated that it would depend upon the type of signal that is installed. She explained that some of the newer signals are demand responsive and thus it would occur automatically while the older signals, where times have been specifically set, may be more difficult to change. Chair Peterson inquired about the traffic impact on the neighborhood near County Road H2. Ms. Zimmer summarized that County Road H2 already has high traffic levels, so the increase in traffic may or may not be noticeable to people. She • added that, certainly those who live directly on County Road H2 will feel the impact of traffic. For this kind of a land use, they do not expect traffic to move off County Road H2 to the adjoining streets through the neighborhood. David Chase, 5244 Skiba Drive, inquired which direction would people who live towards the west and south go when leaving the theater. Ms. Zimmer responded that some of them will use County Road H2 and Long Lake Road, unless they stay on Highway 10. The consultant did not believe that people will get off of County Road H2 or Long Lake Road and go further into the neighborhood. • - . . _ . . ,. '.. ..- ,a -- 2 a - _ i. - _ - .■- . . - I0_•. emotional issues relating to development. There were no further questions relating to traffic. Commissioner Obert brought up the requirement in the Planned Unit Development stipulations that the developer is to place remote cameras in the parking lot. Mr. Anthony expressed that this was an unusual and inappropriate request. Commissioner Obert asked where the requirement came from. Director Sheldon indicated that it was a conclusion from the interviews that she had with Police Departments in other cities who have larger theaters. Commissioner Obert . felt that these types of cameras were not necessary because they were not effective and they could not be used in court. He added that perhaps "dummy" Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 11 cameras could be used. Mr. Anthony assured the Planning Commission, that as_.. owners of the theater, security problems, if any, would be addressed. He added that he did not feel it should be a PUD requirement. It was suggested by the Planning Commission that the requirement to place remote cameras in the parking lot of the theater be removed from the PUD requirements and that it be replaced with "....shall put in place security measures if it is determined by the Mounds View Police Chief that there are persistent security problems associated with this PUD". Chair Peterson asked Mr. Anthony if he had had a chance to review the requirements of the PUD and if, other than the requirement of the remote cameras in the parking lot, were the other items acceptable. Mr. Anthony responded that he has had a chance to review them and found them acceptable. Sandy Simmons, 5041 Edgewood Drive, inquired when the office buildings would be built and why they could not be constructed at the same time as the theater. Commissioner Obert responded by saying that Staff had researched this matter and has determined that the vacancy rate for an office building, of the same size proposed, was five percent. Therefore, they do not expect a problem getting the space leased. Chair Peterson asked Ms. Simmons if the provisions regarding fencing and other screening were acceptable. Ms. Simmons responded that the office buildings are their buffer. Commissioner Stevenson asked the applicant what was the time frame for opening the theater and how much time would they need to lease office space. Mr. Anthony expressed that he hopes to be open by Christmas of this year. If they miss that time frame, he would expect them to be open in June, 1998. Commissioner Stevenson commented that if they opened in December, they may not have all their office space leased, however if they opened in June of next year, they may have all the space leased and, therefore, construction of the office buildings would occur at the same time as the theater. Commissioner Obert asked if the City could mandate the timing of construction by PUD or would they let the market itself drive the construction. Mr. Wendell Smith informed the Commission a certain portion of an office building must be pre-leased prior to obtaining a loan. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to let the market decide the timing of the construction for the office buildings. • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 12 Linda Chase, 5244 Skiba Drive, inquired what would be the length of the fence along County Road H2. Director Sheldon illustrated on the plan where the fence is proposed to be located. Dave Chase, 5244 Skiba Drive, inquired if the gap shown on the plan was a walkway. The Commission indicated that there is a gap in the trees and that the intention is not to have foot traffic access to County Road H2. It was the Planning Commission's consensus to include a statement in the PUD, under item #9, that says the area shown for the office buildings shall be maintained as a buffer area with existing vegetation until such time as the offices are built with the specific dimension to be determined with the development plan stage. Commissioner Brooks left at 9:55 p.m. Mr. Anthony asked the Commission what the process would be to include the restaurants as part of this PUD submittal. Director Sheldon suggested that in the PUD requirements under allowed uses, for parcels A and B, it would read, • "restaurant" with a footnote that would state that the size and parking requirements would be determined at the time of the development plan stage, and the ability to develop the restaurant would be contingent upon submittal of a traffic study. She added that this would be needed to show that the intersections would continue to function at an acceptable level of service. She commented that the initial concept that was brought to Staff had those uses noted, but the plans that were presented to the neighborhood and the Planning Commission did not show the restaurants, although they had talked about it. Director Sheldon expressed that she is concerned with adding restaurants at such a late date. She noted, however, that she has heard no objection to this type of use from the neighborhood but she is concerned with traffic impacts. She indicated that if traffic numbers could be obtained in time for the Council meeting, the proposed restaurants could be included in the public hearing notices. The Planning Commission explained to Mr. Anthony that if the restaurants were not listed on the PUD at this time, he would need to apply for a PUD amendment in order to develop them. However, if they were added now, no amendment would be necessary to the PUD unless a use other than a restaurant is desired. Mr. Anthony requested that perhaps other uses, including restaurants, could be added to the PUD at this time. Director Sheldon again expressed concern with informing residents who were present at previous meetings and with the traffic studies that would need to be done. It was the consensus of the applicant and the Planning • Commission to add the restaurant uses to the PUD proposal. The Planning • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 13 Commission requested that, prior to review by the City Council, traffic numbers be provided for the restaurant uses. David Chase, 5244 Skiba Drive, inquired if parking requirements would change if the restaurants were added. Director Sheldon indicated that they had not yet examined the two parcels, but that they could add a parking ratio to the PUD and the applicant would have to size the restaurant to fit the parking and the restaurants within the limits of the parcels. Mr. Anthony inquired when the PUD documents are to be signed. He also had some concerns with Louise O'Neil's signature being required. Director Sheldon indicated that this issue could be discussed by their attorneys. Council Liaison Koopmeiners joined the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Motion/Second: Obert/Stevenson to adopt Resolution No. 503-97 entitled, "Resolution Recommending Approval of a Rezoning from B-1 and R-2 to Planned Unit Development (PUD), and of a General Concept Plan, for Commercial Uses on the O'Neil Property, 2430 • Highway 10; Planning Case No. 471-97", as amended. Mr. Anthony requested that if they could not get action taken on the request in the time frame discussed that the restaurant uses be removed from the PUD. Director Sheldon indicated that he could certainly negotiate with Council regarding that issue. Motion Carried: 5 ayes, 0 nays Chair Peterson informed the applicant that this item would be discussed at the City Council meeting in May (Staff was not sure of the specific date). There was a 15-minute intermission. • 0 Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 14 7. 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 building. Representatives of the applicant, D.W. Jones, Inc, were represented at the meeting. Director Sheldon reviewed the staff report dated April 16, 1997. She reminded the Commission that there was a lengthy discussion at their last meeting regarding this project and the general consensus of the Planning Commission was that the overall combination of uses appeared suitable with one exception; the gas station. She believed their main concern was the number of gas stations already existing in Mounds View. Another concern expressed by the Commission was the amount of • development on the site and the extent that the development encroaches into the wetland buffer. She reminded the Commission that at their last meeting, they directed Staff to prepare two resolutions: one for approval and one for denial. She informed the Commission that, in the resolution of approval, the main point of emphasis is that the research done on the Area 9 study for Highway 10 indicates that the proposed uses are suitable for the area. The reasons cited in support of approval include: the proposed development is supported by a recent consultant study of the type of uses that would be feasible and marketable in the Area 9 Section of Highway 10; it provides a mixture of uses that appear compatible with the surroundings; within the development, the uses are complimentary to one another; the traffic study shows that the Highway 10/ Silver Lake Road intersection will continue to function at an acceptable level of service; and the development meets the specific criteria in the PUD district. Director Sheldon explained that in the resolution of denial, one of the points concerns the relationship to the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan that refers to promoting and facilitating development of commercial activities which are complementary to those that are already existing and with respect to all of the uses except the gas station, she felt the request has been met. With respect to the gas station, the resolution suggests the Planning Commission make a finding that there is an excess of this type of use in the surrounding community. Additional concerns are the possible detrimental affects of an additional gas station in a community that • already has six and that the traffic study has been questioned by the Ramsey 0 Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 15 County traffic engineer. He feels that there would be stacking problems on Silver Lake Road. The market study submitted by the applicant indicates that there is an unmet demand for gas stations but the market to supply the demand is bigger than Mounds View. The study may need to be revised to include all the gas stations in the travel route rather than just in Mounds View. She briefly reviewed the specific points listed in the resolution of denial: the number of gas stations, the possibility of environmental problems with underground storage tanks, the amount of encroachment into the wetland buffer, the feeling of the Planning Commission that there is too much development on the site, and the information from the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer. 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, and Skip Ducheneau, representing D.W. Jones, Inc. Mr. Black stated that there have been points made regarding the buffer area, density, and the architectural compatibility with the buildings. He added that they are all valid issues and assured the Planning Commission that they would be addressed in greater detail at the development stage. He stated that they were there to ask for consideration of a concept PUD along with a rezoning. He indicated that they wanted the Planning Commission's consideration of the total package and were not prepared to remove any portion of the package. He assured the Commission that if the approval of the PUD came with conditions, they would be considered and carried on to the Council. Mr. Black expressed his concern with the revised resolution with regard to the comment from the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer. Since he just learned of the stacking concerns on Silver Lake Road that evening, he is not prepared to respond at this time but assured them that any traffic issues with Ramsey County would be addressed. Chair Peterson responded to the issue regarding stacking on Silver Lake Road and informed the audience that he has observed this problem on a regular basis. Mr. Ron Schmidt, Amoco Station, 2800 Highway 10, commented that the entire Highway 10 situation should be looked at and agreed with Chair Peterson that there is a traffic problem at that intersection. Mr. Black and the Planning Commission briefly discussed specific traffic scenarios at Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road and how they related to stacking. Director Sheldon suggested that perhaps the applicant could meet with Dan Solar, Ramsey • County Traffic Engineer, to discuss the issue. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 16 Mr. Ralph Durand, 5-D Limited, addressed the Planning Commission commenting that they have met extensively with Mr. Solar who specifically located the curb cuts and indicated where they should be. He also assured the Planning Commission that any traffic concerns would be addressed. Mr. Black addressed the issue of their being unwilling to omit the gas station from the proposal. He pointed out that the gas station is there to capture the unused market on Highway 10. He also addressed the environmental concerns and indicated that today, with the technology that is used, the protection against ground contamination far exceeds what was used in the past and he does not believe this to be an issue. He also addressed the wetland buffer issue stating that 9 of 11 cities surveyed do not even have a wetland buffer requirement and that the City consultant's plan (i.e. SRF Highway 10-Area 9 study) shows almost as much encroachment into the buffer as the applicant shows on their concept plan. Mr. George Winiecki, 2732 Highway 10, addressed the issue of environmental concerns regarding storage tanks. He indicated that the insurance industry provides coverage for pollution leakage problem and it is inexpensive for customers 411 with the new technology. Chuck Durand, 5-D Limited, informed the Commission that State of Minnesota periodically taxes gasoline to assist in clean up issues and they also have strict controls regarding type of tanks used. Commissioner Stevenson expressed his concern that, if another gasoline station goes in, will an existing facility in Mounds View be forced to close. If so, would the City then have to deal with clean up issues. Mr. Winiecki indicated that there are controls that the City could impose regarding clean-up and believes that clean-up is not an issue. Chair Peterson inquired if we had received any new information regarding the wetland boundary. Director Sheldon indicated that a wetland delineation would have to be done and added that the boundary that will decide whether or not the development can occur within a certain area is governed by the DNR. It was her suggestion that this issue be discussed at the development stage. Commissioner Stevenson expressed his concern with the amount of water usage with the addition of another car wash. The applicant informed the Commission that 60 percent of the water used is recaptured. Director Sheldon indicated that they • could get an opinion of the Public Works Director regarding this issue. • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 17 Mr. Ralph Durand, 5-D Limited, addressed the Commission and summarized what they feel to be the status of this request. He indicated that at the last meeting, it was his understanding that the Commission needed the results of the Highway 10, Area 9, study in order to make a recommendation regarding this request. He indicated that the Commission also requested more information regarding the wetland buffer and there was discussion regarding the car wash. But he did not interpret it to be a contingency because their car wash would be different than other car washes. With regard to the SRF report, what has been confirmed is, that they are proposing precisely what the report is recommending. Commissioner Stevenson responded by saying that the report did not specifically indicate service station and, in fact, they actually said more services stations would not be an appropriate use for this site. Mr. Durand indicated that SRF Consulting indicated that the corner should be a food and fuel or a high use/impulse commercial use. Both Commissioners Stevenson and Brasaemle disagreed with Mr. Durand's interpretation that the proposed use is precisely what the report had indicated for this corner. Commissioner Brasaemle alluded to the fact that the proposal fails to meet a couple of points in the report: that not all of these uses could be built on the • site, but a combination of two or three is definitely possible as opposed to the applicant's proposal that includes four uses; and that there is a need to consolidate access points onto Highway 10. Mr. Durand continued with his summary commenting that they are aware of the buffer noting that the City's study indicates that 9 of 11 other communities do not require a buffer. He commented that they are still respecting 55 percent of the buffer area. Director Sheldon asked for clarification on the comment regarding additional service stations not being an appropriate use for the corner. It was determined that the list from which Mr. Stevenson had obtained this information came from a workshop where people from the community were asked for their opinions, and therefore, it was not a conclusion of the Towle Report done in conjunction with the SRF Study. Mr. Winiecki commented on the number of restaurants located on Highway 10 and the Planning Commission's willingness to add more, while they are not in favor of adding another gas station. He said he believes the advantages of this development far outweigh the disadvantages. Commissioner Johnston stated that his major concerns are traffic and the • wetland delineation. Commissioner Obert expressed that he is also concerned with possible stacking and access problems. Mr. Black again brought up SRF's • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 18 Report and the conclusion that this use would be a prime use for this corner. He again assured the Commission that any traffic issues will be addressed as they proceed through the process. Director Sheldon briefly addressed the traffic concerns made by the Commission and the Commission agreed that the issue is not an intersection concern but the ability to get in and out of the site. Chair Peterson expressed that his main concern is with the community image of adding another gas station in Mounds View, not the use itself but that he also had some concerns with site density. Chair Peterson asked the Commission for a motion to either approve or deny the request. Commissioner Stevenson expressed that he thinks we need a PUD, however he feels the applicant needs to present further high impulse uses for the Highway 10/ Silver Lake Road corner for review by the Commission. Mr. Black communicated to the Planning Commission that they have given a lot of consideration and study to this plan and expressed that they would much rather move on to the Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission that supports their efforts as opposed to one of denial. He added that the approval could be subject to certain conditions of the Planning Commission. He reminded the Commission that they are dealing with a concept stage. He is aware there is a lot of work to do beyond this point and there could be many reasons to deny this project beyond this evening if they do not satisfy the City's concerns. He added that he believes the Council would rather hear their concerns in a positive tone as opposed to a recommendation of denial. Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Johnston to approve Resolution No. 505-97 (Option #1), . • • r :-••• •• =••••e. • •- • • ! •• • • . ••••• •.• to Planned Unit Development (PUD), and of a General Concept Plan for Commercial and Residential Uses as Requested by D.W. Jones, Inc.; Planning Case No. 477-97". Commissioner Brasaemle suggested that contingencies need to be added to the PUD document and/or resolution. The Commission concluded that contingencies would need to be added that relate to traffic and the community image (architectural design of the buildings). Director Sheldon suggested that perhaps the gasoline station could be backed up to the corner so that the pumps are interior to the site and the outside is landscaped and bermed, putting more character into • the building and creating a more landmark-type building. The Commission also added a contingency regarding minimizing impact on the wetland buffer, addressed the concerns with the wetland boundaries, and added that utilities be placed • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 19 underground. Director Sheldon assured the Planning Commission that once the revisions have been made they would receive copies for their review and comment. Mr. Black stated that he is in agreement with the PUD document with the exception of the issue relative to trailways. He added that he feels this issue can be brought up at the Council level. The Planning Commission continued their discussion regarding what contingencies should be added to this request. For the item in the PUD document regarding wetland issues, Director Sheldon suggested that the following wording could be used: "At the time of approval of these stipulations, the wetland boundary was not set, that it will be set from the study that will be submitted at the development review stage and that at that time, the City will evaluate whether the amount of density allowed by this PUD needs to be adjusted to take into account a different wetland boundary than what was available at the time of approval of the stipulations", which may mean that the density will be reduced. • Commissioner Obert expressed that he feels the Highway 10-Area 9 study is very important to the City and that this development is crucial in putting the program together. Commissioner Stevenson commented that he believes the concern to be far more than image of the gas station. He remarked that he hasn't forgotten letters and citizen comments regarding their concern of adding another gas station to the community. He believes the community's concern is the gas station use not just the image. Chair Peterson asked the audience of they had any additional concerns. Mr. Ron Schmidt, Amoco Station,2800 Highway 10, referred to the SRF Study, Page 29. He asked if we are really considering the true spirit and intent of the redevelopment goals which is to make a signature development for Section 9 and are the goals of the study being addressed with this development. Motion Carried: 3 ayes, 2 nays. Commissioner Stevenson expressed that he does not feel the use proposed for the corner is the proper use for the PUD. Commissioner Obert expressed that he feels the process should be slowed down so that they can make a more informed decision. His main concern is with the architectural character of the IDSection 9 corridor and that this would be the first development using the Section 9 study. • Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997 Special Meeting Page 20 8. Staff Report/Information Items a. The Planning Commission Bylaws were not approved by the City Council. They want revisions to the provision that would require Commissioner applications to be referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation before selecting candidates. Director Sheldon indicated she would have revised language at their next meeting. b. The ordinance regarding tall grass passed second reading without changes. c. The ordinance regarding day cares in the business/industrial districts passed second reading without changes. d. Director Sheldon distributed materials received from the first session of the U of M Design Course. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Members present at the April 2, 1997 regular meeting included Commissioners Brooks, Johnston, Obert, Miller, Brasaemle, Stevenson and Chair Peterson. Also 1111 present were Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson, Council Liaison Koopmeiners and Recording Secretary Benesch. Members present at the April 2, 1997, agenda meeting (immediately following the regular meeting) included: Commissioners, Johnston, Obert, Miller, Brasaemle, Stevenson and Chair Peterson (Commissioner Brooks left the meeting at 10:10 p.m.) Also present were Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson, Recording Secretary Benesch and Council Liaison Koopmeiners. Chair Peterson also reported that he and Commissioners Miller and Johnston attended the Beyond the Basics class. He found it to be very valuable, with a lot of new information. They also received materials on Comp Plan revisions which will be provided to the other Commissioners at their next meeting. 4. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:22 a.m. Respectfully submitted,,l/tf1 PilrytkAA,. • Pamela Sheldon Community Development Director MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION 11 RESOLUTION NO. 504-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO THE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4 (REDEVELOPMENT)CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY WHEREAS,the Mounds View Economic Development Authority for the City of Mounds View has proposed to adopt Modification No. 1 to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and Establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 4(Redevelopment)and have submitted the Project and Project Plan to the City of Mounds View Planning Commission pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3; and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has reviewed the Project and Project Plan to determine their consistency with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the Comprehensive Plan for the City. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the Project and Project Plan are consistent with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City of Mounds View in that: The creation of TIF District No. 4 will allow the development of a private business, which will in turn produce revenues to assist in the installation of public improvements and renovation of a building intended as a community center for Mounds View. The Mounds View Comprehensive Plan has divided the City into 12 planning districts, and the proposed TIF District No. 4 is in District 1. The Comprehensive Plan envisions the creation of a"city center"where there will be a strong,vital,identifying community focal point in this district. This district is intended to be a mixture of commercial, public, low, medium and high density residential and open space uses. The proposed projcct is consistent with this idea. Adopted the 16th day of April, 1997. Jerry Petersdn, Chairman ATTEST: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director 11. N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROJ\BELRAE\1DLIST.RES MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 505-97 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A REZONING FROM B-2 TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD),AND OF A GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES AS REQUESTED BY D.W. JONES,INC.; PLANNING CASE NO. 477-97 WHEREAS, D.W. Jones, Inc. has applied for a PUD rezoning to develop properties located within an area bounded by Silver Lake Road, Highway 10 and the southern boundary of the St. Paul Waterworks right-of-way, (excluding that property owned by TJB Homes,) property zoned B-2, Limited Business District, described as follows: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 30,Range 23,Ramsey County,Minnesota described as beginning at the southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter;thence easterly along the south line of said Southeast Quarter 1,346.90 feet to the center line of State Trunk Highway No:10; thence northwesterly along said center line 1,434.13 feet to the center line of Silver Lake Road;thence southwesterly and southerly 1,219.64 feet along said last centerline to the point of beginning. Subject to State Trunk Highway No. 10,Silver Lake Road and St.Paul Waterworks Right of Way. Except that part of said Southeast Quarter described as commencing at the southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter and measuring easterly along the south line of said Section 6 a distance of 1,346.9 feet to the intersection of the center line of Highway No. 10(Anoka Cut-oft);thence northwesterly along the centerline of said Highway No. 10,a distance of 765.9 feet to the point of beginning;thence southwesterly at right angles to the center line of said Highway No. 10 a distance of 275 feet;thence northwesterly and parallel with said centerline 100 feet;thence northeasterly at a right angle to the centerline of said Highway No. 10;thence southeasterly along said Highway No. 10 to the point of beginning. And having the following PIN numbers: 06-30-23-43-0003 06-30-23-43-0008 06-30-23-43-0004 06-30-23-43-0009 06-30-23-43-0006 06-30-23-43-0036 06-30-23-43-0007 06-30-23-43-0037 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application S 2. Zoning Map 3. PUD Concept Plan,dated 3/26/97 4. Letter from Applicant,dated 3/5/97 5. Letter from Developer,3/19/97 • Planning Commission Resolution No. 505-97 • April 16, 1997 Page 2 6. Letter from St. Paul Water Utility,dated 2/24/97 7. Letter from Minnesota DNR,dated 3/3/97 8. Letter from the US Army Corp of Engineers,dated 3/24/97 9. Letters from Residents 10. Market Needs Analysis/Traffic Analysis,dated 3/19/97 11. Tax Impact Analysis,dated 3/19/97 WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the possible adverse effects of this rezoning according to Section 1125.01, Subd. 1.e: 1. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan According to the Comprehensive Plan, the properties included in this project should be developed on a staged, planned-unit basis. The District 1 (City Center) Comp Plan map designates these properties as mixed use PUD. The Comp Plan also suggests that the natural features on this site be preserved and that consideration be given for the dedication of a bike or walking path. The proposed plan includes a mixture of uses including convenience commercial, restaurants, office, and senior citizen housing, to be zoned under • a planned unit development. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • 2. The geographical area involved. 4. The character of the surrounding area. This subject area is for the most part vacant. The only improvement is a small insurance office near the corner of the subject property. A large proportion of the area is federally protected wetland, the balance is uplands covered in prairie grass and scrub trees. There is an 83-unit senior residential building to the south of this project, Highway 10 and commercial developments to the east, and a service station and multi- and two-family residential districts to the north and west. TJB Homes has an office building within this section of land to be developed, but it is not included in the proposal. The proposal will fit in the surrounding character in that it includes a mixture of commercial and residential uses with the commercial uses concentrated along Highway 10. The residential use, proposed as a senior citizen housing development will coordinate with the existing senior housing project on an adjacent property. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which the use is proposed. The applicants have provided an estimated tax impact analysis of the subject property showing the current taxes paid and the projected taxes paid with the uses proposed. Taxes paid are expected to increase a minimum of$215,000 as a result of this project. It is anticipated that the proposal will have a positive, rather than negative, effect on • surrounding properties since the uses proposed blend well with existing development, and • Planning Commission Resolution No. 505-97 • April 16, 1997 Page 3 the plan coordinates the improvements on this property. The traffic study indicates that the intersection at Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road will continue to function at an acceptable level of service. The senior facility to the south should benefit as a result of this project with the added facilities within walking distance and the prospect of more seniors with which to gather. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. According to the Towle marketing study prepared as part of the Section 9 Redevelopment Plan for the Highway 10 corridor, the uses proposed with the exception of the gas station/car wash/fast food component are listed as being well suited for the area given the market. While a demonstrated need was not exhibited specifically for the gas station, car wash and fast food, the Towle study stated that high impulse, convenience commercial was the highest and best use for the parcels at the intersection of Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road. A separate marketing report supplied by the applicant shows that a large percent of the volume on Highway 10 is not being captured by the existing service stations. The car wash proposed is a soft cloth wash, as opposed to the existing"touch- less" and self-wash options already present in the City. • WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that this proposal meets the purpose and intent of Planned Unit Developments as stated in Section 1120.01 of the Mounds View Municipal Code in that the applicant has planned the overall development of this property and included an appropriate mix of uses which compliment each other and will add to the vitality of the City. Requirements have been included to ensure high quality architectural design and coordinated signage. WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that this proposal meets the general requirements and standards for Planned Unit Developments(Section 1120.02)through the stipulations established in Exhibit 1 to this resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that this proposal meets the special requirements and standards for mixed-use PUDs (Section 1120.03, Subd. 3) as follows: Required Provided Minimum Project Size 5 acres 12.96 acres Minimum Street Frontage 200 feet 960 feet Minimum Property Width 200 feet 780 feet Landscaping, Screening and Surfacing: • (1) The entire site,other than that taken up by structures or landscaping shall be surfaced with a material to control dust,drainage and erosion. • • Planning Commission Resolution No. 505-97 April 16, 1997 Page 4 The applicant is proposing to pave all parking areas, access drives and the internal roadway. (2) A drainage system conforming to the comprehensive storm drainage plan and subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer shall be installed. The preliminary drainage plan indicates the creation of two NURP ponds, one between the proposed senior building and one at the south easternmost portion of the subject area. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the issue was raised as to whether the second NURP pond was actually located within the delineated wetland area. The applicants indicated that there were other locations within the subject area to accommodate another pond if necessary. The City Engineer was unable to provide comments as to the drainage system capabilities without the run- off calculations and the ponding specifications. This information will be provided by the applicants at the development stage of the PUD process. A stipulation has • been included that adjustments shall be made in the density and layout of the development if needed to accommodate the necessary drainage improvements. • (3) Development abutting an R-1,R-2,or R-3 District shall be screened and landscaped in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08(1)through(5)of this Title. This requirement is not applicable since the subject properties do not abut any R-1, R-2 or R-3 Districts. The proposal would meet the requirements of Section 1103.08 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning from B-2, Limited Business District to PUD, Planned Unit Development and approve the general concept plan as shown in the alternate site plan dated 3/26/97, for the Winiecki/Jones properties between Silver Lake Road and Highway 10 to the southern line of the St. Paul Waterworks right-of-way, excluding the parcel occupied by TJB Homes, all subject to the stipulations in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and with the following condition: 1. Prior to forwarding this case to the City Council for action, the applicant and staff consult with the Ramsey County traffic engineer to resolve any concerns from Ramsey County regarding possible traffic congestion on Silver Lake Road which would be created by this proposed development. • • Planning Commission Resolution No. 505-97 April 16, 1997 Page 5 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 16th day of April, 1997. Jerry Petersii,(mairperson Attest: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director • (Seal) • N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\DE V CASES\477-9NONESPC 1.RES •