Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-1998 PC • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 4, 1998 Mounds View City Hall 2410 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call To Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., February 4, 1998. 2. Roll Call Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Brooks, Johnston, Miller, Obert, and Stevenson. Members absent: Commissioner Brasaemle (Excused). Also present: Community Development Director Jopke, Planning Associate Ericson, and Recorder Dave Hix. Council Liaison Koopmeiners was absent (Excused). Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. 512-98, 2375 Highway 10; Development Review, 2 Saturn Development. Planning Case No. 507-97, Highway 10, County Road I and Eastwood Road; 4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning, TOLD Development Company (Walgreens) 3. Approval of Minutes a. December 17, 1997 b. January 7, 1998 Chairperson Peterson asked for comments, questions or changes to the listed minutes. There were no comments, questions or changes. • Mounds View Planning Commission February 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 2 Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brooks to approve the listed minutes as submitted. Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizen Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda No citizen requests and comments on items Not on the agenda were considered. 5. Planning Case No. 512-97 2375 Highway 10 Applicant: Saturn Development Development Review • The applicant, Saturn Development, represented by Jim Price, was present. Associate Ericson told the Commission that Saturn Development is asking the City to revise an expansion plan that was approved by the City in 1996. The originally approved service bays and car wash facility will be modified and relocated per the new plan. Saturn . is asking for the City's approval to put the car wash on the west side of the building and add the service bays to the east side of the building. This addition would create additional show floor space for new car products that will be introduced in the near future. The impervious surfaces are not expected to change as a result of this project. Green space will remain the same. The parking and outdoor storage areas will be reduced slightly. The City requires 22 customer parking spaces and 27 employee parking spaces, for a total of 49 spaces. Saturn is proposing 55 spaces distributed in a slightly different count. The City is asking Saturn to redistribute their parking plan to meet the City standards. The 1996 CUP requirements (conditional use requirements) are met with one exception, this being: A minimum of 10 percent of the property, excluding setback requirements, is required for landscaped green space. When the original CUP was approved by the City it was determined that the 10 percent green space could be included in the setback area. The other issue with the project is the concern about water drainage. The Rice Creek • Watershed District has been contacted regarding the proposed project. The may require . Mounds View Planning Commission February 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 3 that Saturn provide on-site-storm-water ponding or receive a variance. No variance application has been submitted by Saturn to rectify this issue. Associate Ericson told the Commission that the City staff is recommending that the following additional information be supplied by the applicant: 1. More detailed information regarding the drainage for the site. 2. Revised photometric analysis showing footcandle readings to the centerlines of adjoining streets and luminaire specifications. 3. Documentation from Ramsey County indicating that the three lots have been combined. 4. Indication from Rice Creek Watershed District whether or not on-site ponding will be required. If so, the applicant shall revise the site plans to show how on-site ponding will be provided. In addition, the following stipulations were requested: 1. Add notation to plans that customer and employee parking will be clearly marked • and kept free of inventory. Show the location of handicapped stalls. 2. Provide detail on plan as to how trash enclosure will be constructed. Show concrete pad. Associate Ericson stated that meeting the listed requirements would make it possible for the City staff to bring forward a resolution for this proposal. Jim Price, from Saturn Development, told the Commission that Saturn should do whatever is necessary to meet the requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District. He added that the amount of asphalt area on the site is being decreased so there probably would be no need for on-site ponding. The lighting issue is being addressed and copies of the requested specifications will be submitted to the City as requested. Commissioner Stevenson told the Commission that one of his concerns now, as it was at the time of approval of the original development, is the Highway 10 right-of-way, and that it remain available for bike paths and trails. Mr. Price told the Commission that combining the lots, as requested, would take from six weeks to two months. This process is currently underway with Ramsey County. Associate Ericson told the Commission that there are no proposals to amend the existing CUP and there will be no impact to the CUP as it has been approved. He added that there Mounds View Planning Commission February 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 4 will be landscaping along County Road H2 to provide some screening. The City Forester has reviewed that plans and given his approval. Commissioner Johnston suggested that all of the surrounding neighbors be made aware of the project. This would give them a chance to voice their opinions when the Plan comes back for approval. Associate Ericson said the Development would be put on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for February 18, 1998. He added the surrounding neighborhood would be made aware of the meeting so they would have a chance to attend and voice their opinions. 6. Planning Case No. 507-97 Highway 10, County Road I &Eastwood Road Applicant: TOLD Development Company (Walgreens) Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning S The applicant, TOLD Development, was present. Associate Ericson told the Commission the proposed rezoning on the property is from residential to limited business. A comprehensive plan amendment from high density and low density residential to neighborhood commercial will also be required. In addition to the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, other actions that will be required for this proposal to move forward are as follows: 1. Major subdivision of the property, reorganizing the five parcels and vacated Eastwood Road into one lot. 2. A development review. 3. Approving the vacation of Eastwood Road. Associate Ericson defined the Comprehensive Plan process for the benefit of the audience. He added that changing the Comprehensive plan is not a simple process because it changes the face of the City, and the appropriateness of any change needs to be questioned extensively. • The zoning of a property has to match the Comprehensive Plan and they cannot be in conflict with each other. The Comprehensive plan takes precedence over zoning issues. • Mounds View Planning Commission February 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 5 This is the reason that the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended for the Walgreen Development. The Comprehensive Plan issues are: 1. What kind of buffer is the developer providing. 2. Traffic impact, a 40 percent increase in traffic. 3. Suitability for residential development. 4. The impact on the City's tax base. 5. Green space The rezoning issues are: 1. The relationship to the Comprehensive Plan 2. Surrounding developments, what are they? 3. Demonstrated need for the development. 4. Grading issues 5. Traffic impact, closing off Eastwood Road • 6. Crime impact Commissioner Johnston asked Mr. Cunningham if there was any verification to back up the statement made by a citizen that her property would fall in value by 15 percent if the Walgreen project went through. Mr. Cunningham declined to comment. Gayla Keyes, 7730 Greenwood Drive, stated that she had a realtor appraise her property. The realtor told Ms. Keyes that her property would decrease in value by 10 - 15 percent if the Walgreen project went through. Warren Johnson, 7710 Greenwood Drive, asked the Commission who would be responsible for the decrease in value of his property if the Walgreen project is approved. He asked the Commission to research this question and have some type of answer available at the next meeting that involved the project. Commissioner Obert suggested that the City use an independent real estate appraiser to value the properties in question. Associate Ericson stated that an independent appraiser was available for the City's use and the City Attorney could be called in to answer questions of valuation impact that the Walgreen project might have. Mounds View Planning Commission February 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 6 Mr. Johnson added he is also concerned how the Walgreen project will affect the time it takes for a person to sell his home if he decides that he can't live in the neighborhood once the project is given the go ahead. Mary Polachek-King, 7751 Greenwood Drive, stated she has concerns about how traffic would affect the residents' ability to safely use Hillview Park. She added that the Walgreen project would also bring with it more rental properties to an already over- saturated rental property climate in Mounds View. Bob Cunningham, with TOLD Development, Walgreen's project developer, stated it is the developer's desire to cooperate with the City and the neighbors. This could include implementing traffic-slow-down designs into the streets and also re-engineering existing drainage problems to alleviate flooding in the properties that boarder on the development site. Mr. Cunningham stated that the building-to-lot-size ratio is 9 percent; typically a retail development lot-size-to- building ratio is 20-25 percent. He added that the average number of cars entering into the Walgreen facility would be six cars an hour at normal 410 times, with the number of cars increasing to nine cars per hour during peak-use periods. Mr. Cunnignham told the Commission that the project would generate 35-45 jobs. Approximately 15-25 of the jobs would be part-time with the balance being full-time, and of these there would be 7-8 executive positions, including manager, assistant manager, and pharmacists. Mr. Johnson stated he has asked the City on numerous occasions to close off Greenwood Drive to help eliminate some of the accidents that occur because of the high traffic flow on that street. He has been told by the City that Greenwood Drive cannot be closed off because of Fire Department, Police Department, and school bus use. However, now the City is saying that it is okay to close off Edgewood Drive. Mr. Johnson said if Eastwood can be closed off for tax-base reason, then Greenwood should be able to be closed off for the safety concerns of the residents. Commissioner Obert suggested that all the facts, traffic counts, accident reports, etc., be collected so the discussions that are taking place can be based on fact and not on conjecture. Chairperson Peterson recommended that a broader traffic analysis be done because the current traffic study addresses only the areas north of Long Lake Road and County Road • I. Mounds View Planning Commission February 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 7 Michael Chen, representing Benshoof& Associates, traffic consultants, addressed the Commission and stated that the study area and scope of the traffic study were determined by the areas that would be affected by closing off Eastwood Drive at County Road I. Areas south of this would not be affected. Mr. Chen stated the study shows that closing off Eastwood and adding the Walgreen project, 18 cars an hour would be added to the traffic flow on Greenwood Drive. Ms. Polachek-King stated the study time was too short to get a good average. Ms. Keyes stated the traffic on Greenwood is much heavier in the summer because of the recreation that is taking place in Hillview Park. She , too, said she didn't think the traffic count was accurate. Mr. Chen stated the Walgreen project would generate an additional 56 cars that would enter into the Highway 10 County Road I intersection during the p.m. peak hour. This is 1.2 percent of the total traffic that is in this intersection on any given day. • John Wiens, 7760 Greenwood Drive, questioned Mr. Chen's figures and stated his concerns about the accuracy of the study. Mr. Chen stated when the 610-118 connector is completed, in 1999, there will be a significant decrease in traffic on Highway 10. This will make Highway 10 a safer road to travel. Chairperson Peterson said he was very concerned about pedestrian safety and was disappointed when the pedestrian bridge over Highway 10 was canceled. Commissioner Obert agreed. Mr. Chen told the Commission at 714 cars per day, Greenwood Drive is well within the Metropolitan Council's definition of maximum traffic for a residential street's traffic count for any given day. Ms. Keyes said she would like to know the increased cost for the City to maintain the roads that are affected by the increased traffic. She asked if this information could be brought to the next meeting that was held in regards to the Walgreen project. Mr. Johnson asked if it would be possible to put funds in escrow to protect the residents from water damage caused by unforeseeable flooding of the Walgreen property and its 11 effect on the adjoining residential properties. • Mounds View Planning Commission February 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 8 Mr. Cunningham told the owners of the adjoining properties that TOLD would be willing to re-engineer the site so that all storm water run-off was stored on Walgreen property, including that of the adjoining properties. Joann Colleen, 2617 County Road I, said her concerns were lighting, traffic, and the easements that are involved. She asked who would be responsible for the taxes that would be paid on the 45 feet of property that the project report said would be given to the adjoining neighbors. Would this be considered a scenic easement or a dedicated easement, she asked. Associate Ericson stated the property would be owned by the developer and the developer would be paying taxes on that property. Ms. Keyes said she is not interested in the land because she would have to maintain it. Ms. Colleen said she is concerned that whatever is decided, in regards to the proposed development, will in fact, happen as it is agreed to. 410 Associate Ericson assured Ms. Colleen that once the resolution is established, and there is a developers agreement, the agreement will be the law. If the developer does not follow through with the terms of the agreement there will be a performance bond to make sure that the project will be completed as agreed. Chairperson Peterson told the audience the Comprehensive Plan review that includes these parcels of land would be addressed on February 11, 1998. He invited all interested citizens to attend. 7. Staff Reports/Information Items Director Jopke told the Commission the first meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Update, area No. 1, will be at the cafeteria of the Pinewood School on February 11, 1998. 8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Commissioner Miller told the Commissioners she would be absent from the Planning Commission meeting to be held on the 18th of February due to medical reasons. 9. Adjournment • Mounds View Planning Commission February 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 9 There being no further business before the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director • cX/ 'T / iU in Lf 'tSE ( p,,,..),.„,6 ,ckM,.SS!add Project of interest 4ing '. Address Phone # (Saturn or Walgreens ?) D*`' ►IJ L f NG41t-fz, amu, 5 ti i.e cg - `%o- o ` .44- 57Thie--k) - Z` IZc d K.l.tel../ G'7Z, 00)j\jI 0g 16)ga)1(k9,;(0 0IZOJ.1►CG 11' '17' 5i 61 ' 'cu // 0 j �1,i1 K I Z.e-:r-ic'ig 6`a, v L-mc );(.4 D �1� /ov it E s'C j i 1 `�, 0 '500 0 U.L( `1 LQ-1_. /(CC� 't .i7 -2( 7757) e e.,, ,w„ -77)(v l V3 oLj L-)1-+RA.-S 77 G t C rta-eAh4)00,R• -736, -CA/o` W a,\ f-P--eQJ - Il't 62.- Cce-K 5 l I%as ccci 76 - ( 774. \j41,1AQ0A.' -.1 oll ks,-.A., 77 eo C RA- CA-1 -5 /-• ,n 1 7757 (7/eeyi i0c'i 7i. 9 -9(e `- q ai5v"45 W-4(.1.LinnI�'- � 1. t�S 7' 3r, � r��nrc►r�<�� A r, '`7 - q."1:9,44 a-P ' r? I1 (/'car e- '7 l '-e--_ tt31 4 ti Kms.. 7 '7 C. 7 _ 2 ,?-7C- N(loh-1,-. (\k h:;Ct.3 . Qv o.srk .l t —11y S 6.2- a a. t c( 1 %9o(t3 4.)& c -40/1. 41.2I C G-er\ 5.4.v s tu:44 sQ o.c . ?32 -t 'y F (,cJ , (-4--* _g/i, e.c.ees:ee'&.__ __'‘,/16,161'---P_eirze,e.z: g7 -.e .4/7 kkeir .z.lf. 1 c -- 1 • 0