HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-18-1998 PC PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
AllCITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
February 18, 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 18, 1998.
2. Roll Call
Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Brasaemle, Brooks (departed at
9:15 p.m.), Johnston, and Obert.
Members absent: Commissioners Miller (excused), and Stevenson (excused).
Also present: Community Development Director Jopke, Planning Associate Ericson,
Council Liaison Koopmeiners (departed at 9:20 p.m.), and Recorder Dave Hix.
•
Index to Minutes Page
Planning Case No. 512-98, 2375 and 2395 Highway 10, Consideration of 6
Resolution No. 535-98, Regarding Development Review, Saturn Development.
Planning Case No. 507-97, 2625 Highway 10, 7715-7761 Eastwood Road, 8
Discussion Regarding Walgreen's Development Request, Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and Rezoning, TOLD Development Company
Planning Case No. 513-98, 8265 Spring Lake Road, Consideration of Resolution 4
No. 532-98, Approving a 7-Foot Variance to the Required 30-Foot Front-Yard
Setback, Preferred Builders, Inc.
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items not on the Agenda
No citizens requests or comments for items not on the agenda were considered.
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
Special Meeting Page 2
4. Presentation:
North Metro I-35 Corridor Coalition. University of Minnesota Design Team
Director Jopke gave the Commission and citizens in attendance a brief introduction to
and background on the University of Minnesota Design Center for American Urban
Landscape (Design Center) and the North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition (Coalition).
The seven communities of Arden Hills, Blaine, Circle Pines, Mounds View, New
Brighton, Roseville, and Shoreview make up the Coalition. Their vision statement was
stated as follows: "The Coalition will jointly and cooperatively plan for and maximize the
opportunities for regional community development, quality growth and diversification in
the North Metro through a system of collaboration."
Mayors and city administrators/managers comprise the governing board. The first year's,
1997, accomplishments include:
1. securing outside sources of funding
2. laying the foundation for a common Geographic Information System (GIS)
3. building relationships within the Coalition as well as other governmental entities
such as Anoka County, Ramsey County, school districts, state agencies, and the
Metropolitan Council.
The Coalition's second year goal is to develop a subregional planning framework to shape
and direct future work. The Coalition has contracted with the Design Center to assist in
opening up this framework development for community input. Jopke told the Commission
it is fundamental that community development committees, council members, appointed
commissions, and interested citizens participate in the process.
commissions to be held in March or early April, and a Coalition Summit to be held in early
May.
William Morrish, Director of the Design Center, told the Commissioners and citizens in
attendance if the seven city coalition was combined into one city, this city would be the
third largest community in Minnesota. In the next ten years this second-tier-urban area, as
it is labeled by the Metropolitan Council, will have over 660,000 people living and
working in it. Because this area is considered fully developed, in terms of open space, the
question becomes: What do we do next? This is the question that the Design Center will
assist the Coalition in answering.
10/ Mr. Morrish told the Commission that the Coalition is one of the first groups in the
metropolitan area to address the growth and change issues. He said the State Legislature
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
• Special Meeting Page 3
is very interested in the I-35W Corridor Coalition because of this fact. The process is an
aggregated grass roots type of project, and this is what is spurring the interest of the
Legislature. Partnerships are important, if only from the standpoint that no one city has a
tax base that would allow them to address the problems that need to be solved.
Mr. Morrish complimented the Coalition on standardizing the Comprehensive Plan
Language. By doing this, it will make it possible for one city to talk to another city in the
same language. Each city would be able to react to another city's development that is
going to affect their borders.
Mr. Morrish stated the GIS system is going to make traffic analyses much easier for the
Coalition area. It will also help assess housing issues that depend on location based
criteria.
Mr. Morrish's third point of discussion addressed "standards". How are we going to
accommodate change but also maintain the quality of life in the communities? This, he
said, would be the most difficult of tasks because of the interrelation of community
boarders.
411, Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions and comments.
Commissioner Johnston stated the GIS maps would be a great help in locating problem
areas and approaching design issues on a geographical basis.
Commissioner Brooks commented on the fact that the joint effort of the Coalition would
take the element of surprise out of the surrounding communities developments. All the
cities would know what developments were taking place in each other communities.
Commissioner Brasaemle stated the Coalition is the ideal forum to address the issue of
puri e. . . . .os -a . . .• .- - -- - :. : . : - :: ' . .
design process. Brasaemle told the Design Center the citizens of Mounds View have
expressed the desire to have a "little narrower streets." Mounds View city redevelopment
was also a point of discussion with the Commissioner.
Commissioner Obert commented on the compatibility of all seven cities with the Met
Council. He asked if the Met Council would treat this coalition similarly as they have
other city groups. Obert specifically stated that Blaine had problems working with the
Met Council.
Mr. Morrish told Obert the Met Council was very interested in this Coalition because of
• its advanced development and organization. He added currently there is a bill in the
Legislature as the first to recognize the I-35W Coalition. MnDOT is also interested and
has supplied some funding for the development of coalition groups.
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
• Special Meeting Page 4
Chairperson Peterson asked if there is a unified front on the Anoka County Airport
Development.
Mr. Morrish said there would be problems, this being one of the major ones for this
Coalition Group. It is the challenge to the group to solve the problem so that all
participants can get some benefit from the development.
Commissioner Obert stated the Coalition would be a good opportunity for the
communities to apply some needed pressure on the Met Council as a way to get the ball
rolling on some projects.
Warren Johnson, 7710 Greenwood, asked who chose Mounds View as a pilot area for
the Coalition program.
Mr. Morrish told Johnson the Mayor and city administrators were already working
together, and the Mayors Association had been formative in getting the City of Mounds
View involved in the process.
• 5.
Planning Case No. 513-98
8265 Spring Lake Road
Applicant: Preferred Builders, Inc.
Consideration of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a 7-Foot Variance to the Required 30-Foot
Front-Yard Setback.
The applicant, Darryl Westerlund was present.
eve I organ, • oun•s view - •u •- • , _. •- - • , -- • ; • '-
background
_background on the proposed development:
In 1996 the Mounds View EDA acquired a lot at the above address through the Housing
Replacement Program. At that time a 20-foot variance was applied for and granted to
deal with the property's 80-foot width and the City's 100-foot-frontage requirement.
On January 30, 1998, the EDA sold the property to Preferred Builders. As part of the
purchase agreement Preferred Builders was required to build a minimum three bedroom,
two bathroom home with an attached two car garage. The home proposed by Preferred
Builders meets all of the City's requirements with the exception that the house is 7 feet
• wider than the code allows. This width difference is due to the house having a three car
attached garage instead of a two car attached garage. The owner is asking for a 7-foot
variance to resolve the problem.
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
• Special Meeting Page 5
Staff is recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 532-98 denying a
variance request by Preferred Builders, Inc., to allow a 7-foot variance from the required
30-foot building setback from a public right-of-way along Ardan Avenue for the property
located at 8265 Spring Lake Road.
Chairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions and comments.
Commissioner Brasaemle asked the Builder what rationale was used to select the
submitted home design for this property. He stated that a different home plan may have
worked better on this piece of property.
Darryl Westerland, representative for Preferred Builders, told the Commission the
chosen home is the company's most popular design. He continued saying that the
company has no home in their design file that would work on the property. Mr.
Westerland stated all communication that was held with the City specified this home plan,
including the three car garage. He referred to Ms. Bennett as the City's representative on
communication matters for the proposed project. Westerland reminded the Commission
there is a signed purchase agreement with the City that stipulates the house design as
submitted. Westerland offered, as an attempt to settle the issue, to accept a four-foot
• variance. He stated the garage could be modified to accommodate this solution.
Chairperson Peterson stated that market conditions are such that a three car garage is
standard.
Commissioner Johnston stated the Builder did not meet the criteria for hardship,
although, he would like to see the project approved.
Commissioner Brasaemle told the Builder that it was unfair for him to blame the City
staff, Ms. Bennett, for the error. He said it is the Builder's responsibility to make sure that
all of the City's dimensional requirements, codes, and specifications are met.
Mr. Westerland said he did not intend to place blame on any one individual, but again
reminded the Commission that he had a signed document that approved the plan as
submitted.
The Commission reviewed the documents and it was noted that there was conflicting
information within the document that would need to be resolved by the City Attorney. It
was proposed that the Variance request be tabled to another meeting. This would give the
staff the time it would need to resolve the conflicting information issues with the City
Attorney.
• Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Peterson to table Planning Case No. 513-98, Consideration of
Resolution No. 532-98, approving a 7-Foot Variance to the Required 30-Foot Front-Yard
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
411 Special Meeting Page 6
Setback to a later meeting, thus giving the staff the time that is required to resolve legal issues
with the City Attorney.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0
Motion carried.
6.
Planning Case No. 512-98
2375 and 2395 Highway 10
Applicant: Saturn Development
Consideration of Resolution No. 535-98 regarding Development Review
The applicant, Saturn Development, represented by Jim Price, was present.
Associate Ericson gave the Commission a brief review of the Development background.
On February 4, 1998 the Planning Commission held a Development review of the
• proposed Saturn Project. At this meeting it was decided that the neighbors within a 350
feet of the proposed project would be notified and given a chance to meet with Planning
Commission to discuss the Development.
The original site plan, which had been approved in 1996 is being modified so that the new
plans will include added showroom space, service bays and a car wash. All work in the
new development will be to the east of the existing building, with the exception of the car
wash.
The primary issues with this development are availability of parking, site lighting and the
possibility of combining the parcels for tax purposes, and the Rice Creek Watershed
District (RCWD) might require on-site stormwater storage.
The revised site plan dated February 12, 1998, shows all of the requested changes have
been made with regard to the parking counts, handicapped stalls, garbage dumpster
enclosure details and the change to the sign fronting Highway 10. Saturn Development is
in the process of working with Ramsey County to resolve the issue of combining the three
lots into one for tax purposes. A February 25, 1998 meeting with the RCWD is scheduled
to resolve the stormwater drainage details.
All conditions of the CUP have been met, with the exception of the 10 percent of the
property, excluding setback requirements. The Planning Commission indicated the
. property already had an extraordinary amount of setback from Highway 10 and the
greenspace therein could apply toward the 10 percent, thereby fulfilling the requirement.
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
• Special Meeting Page 7
Associate Ericson indicated it is staffs recommendation to Approve Resolution 535-98
recommending approval of the development review request made by Saturn Development
Company, with the following stipulations:
1. Prior to the City Council's review, show RCWD stormwater drainage requirements
if they exist.
2. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall accomplish the
following:
a. Obtain access and grading permits from MnDOT and Ramsey County, if
required, and provide proof of such permit or permission to the City.
b. Obtain a RCWD permit
c. Remove the two incidental directional signs from the County Road H-2
right of way.
d. Enter into a development agreement with the City.
• Chairperson Peterson stated there was a miscalculation on the percentage of impervious
surface area. He suggested correcting this number before the plan is approved.
Darwin Lindahl, Saturn Development's representative, told the Commission the issue of
conforming to the RCWD requirements is being resolved. He added the total amount of
impervious surface is the same or may be even less than the existing development. Taking
this into account, there might not be a need for on-site stormwater retention.
Chairperson Peterson opened the floor to the public for question regarding the Saturn
Development.
No questions or comments were considered from the public.
Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks, to recommend approval of Resolution 535-98,
recommending approval of the development review request made by Saturn Development
Company, with the stipulations as stated.
Ayes - 5 Nays - 0
Motion carried.
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
• Special Meeting Page 8
7.
Planning Case No. 507-97
2625 Highway 10, 7715-7761 Eastwood Road
Applicant: TOLD Development, for Walgreen's
Discussion Regarding Walgreen's Development Request, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
Rezoning.
Associate Ericson addressed the Commission and citizens stating the Planning
Commission is charged with the task of deciding whether or not it would be appropriate to
rezone residential properties and amend the comprehensive plan to allow for the
development of a Walgreen's store at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and County
Road I. He added, the staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission with
regard to drafting a resolution recommending either approval or denial of the rezoning and
comprehensive plan amendment request.
Associate Ericson gave a background review of the proposal as follows:
TOLD Development has purchase agreements in force for the properties located at 2625
• highway 10, and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road. The property fronting highway 10 at this
location is owned by the City while the four single-family properties along Eastwood road
are under separate ownership. The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan
amendment, rezoning, major subdivision and development review for the stated properties.
In addition, the applicant requests the street bisecting these parcels(Eastwood Road)be
vacated and replace with a cul-de-sac. The current zoning is split with the City-owned
parcel zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential and the parcels on Eastwood Road being
zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The proposed zoning is B-2, Neighborhood
Commercial, which would allow the Walgreen use or similar uses such as financial
institutions, office building, floral shop, hardware store or off-sale liquor sales.
It is staffs recommendation to continue the open discussion process to a future meeting or
meetings. The Planning Commission is being asked to provide direction to staff and the
developer if additional information is needed.
Commissioner Obert observed the absence of comments that address the citizen's
concerns in regards to property values. A second issue, as discussed in an earlier Planning
Commission meeting, was researching the City's police reports in order to get some kind
of factual basis for assessing the traffic accident occurrences in the area of the
development. Obert added, as did the other Commissioners, that no matter which way the
decision goes on the development, the City would not be able to please all of the residents
• affected by this project. It is very critical to the success of the project that the discussions
that take place in regard to the Walgreen project be based on fact and not emotion, Obert
said.
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
• Special Meeting Page 9
Associate Ericson responded by saying the accident information requested is being
obtained from the State.
Bob Cunningham, TOLD Development, addressed the property value issue. He told the
Commission he is willing to sit down with the affected property owners on an individual
basis to work out their specific issues whether those issues be landscaping, drainage or
compensation amounts.
Commissioner Obert re-emphasized the need for an independent unbiased real estate
appraiser.
Gayla Keyes, 7730 Greenwood Drive, told the Commission that she has hired an
independent real estate agent to assess her property. This person told her that her
property would decrease in value.
Cecelia Brownell, 7730 Greenwood Drive, told the Commission that the real estate agent
had indicated the property would drop in value between $4,000-$14,000 dollars. She
added she does not want the development in the neighborhood.
• Terry Moses asked if the appraisal was done by a certified appraiser, and continued by
telling the Commission that there is a difference between a real estate agent and an MAI
appraiser. He said real estate agents are held to lower standards than an MAI appraiser.
He suggested hiring an MAI appraiser to do the work instead of a real estate agent.
Director Jopke reminded the Commission and the meeting attendees that it is very
important to keep in mind what the "big picture" is. He asked, "How can the staff provide
the Commission, Developer and citizens with the type of information that is being
requested?" He agreed with Mr. Cunningham's statement that it is very hard to quantify
the effect that a development of the type will have on the surrounding neighborhood.
Jopke stated the staff would make every attempt to locate information that is relevant to
the situation and in turn forward that information to the appropriate people.
Chairperson Peterson asked Benshoof and Associate's representative, Michael Chen to
comment on the report that SEH had made regarding the traffic study.
Michael Chen stated if you asked five different engineers the same question, most likely
you'd get five different answers because of the way the information is collected. Benshoof
and Associates gathered their information from different sources than SEH. He added
that the differences in the two firm's figures were very minute.
• Mr. Cunningham added, Walgreen's is a neighborhood retailer, and draws its clientele
from the immediate surrounding areas. The majority of the customers are live within 1.5
mile radius of the store.
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
• Special Meeting Page 10
Chairperson Peterson asked Chen to summarize what the traffic study was indicating.
Mr. Chen told the Commission the traffic study indicated the overall impact of the
Walgreen's Development is not expected to have a significant negative impact on traffic to
the affected neighborhood with the closing of Eastwood Drive.
Mr. Johnson stated he has lived in the neighborhood for 29 years, before the shopping
center was developed, before any of the commercial developments on this section of
Highway 10 came into being. He suggested dividing County Road I so that traffic could
enter the Walgreen facility from the left only. This would prevent cars coming down
Eastwood from turning into the facility and causing a traffic bottleneck in this area.
Associate Ericson told Johnson Ramsey County had received a copy of the development
plan for informational purposes. The City is looking for some type of input from the
County for the Walgreen development.
Mr. Cunningham told the Commission as the developer he would be reluctant to accept
the development condition that there be a right-in right-out turn scenario established for
County Road I.
• Associate Ericson told the Commission it might not be the City's choice because of the
fact that County Road I is a county road. He added the City would not force this type of a
condition on the developer or the site plan.
Mr. Chen added the spacing between Walgreen's main access, the Mounds View Center
access, and the Highway 10 intersection all conform to the spacing specifications that have
been established by MnDOT.
Chairperson Peterson commented the light timing cycle on Highway 10's traffic signals
should be modified to improve the traffic flow through Mounds View.
Chairperson Peterson suggested the discussion get back to the subject of the "big
picture," this being commercial development versus residential on the corner properties
that are being considered for the Walgreen development. He added there are some early
leanings that have surfaced in the community meetings. It seems like the citizens want any
commercial developments to take place on the Highway 10 corridor and any residential
developments to take place off of the Highway 10 corridor. The City needs to improve its
tax base.
Commissioner Obert, again, emphasized the importance of addressing the question of
• decreasing property values and addressing the traffic safety issues within the City.
Commissioner Brasaemle readdressed the question: "Is this the appropriate piece of
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
• Special Meeting Page 11
property for his development?" He said he did not have a good answer for this question
and probably wouldn't have one until after the next Comprehensive Plan Update meeting,
where this particular piece of property was going to be discussed in regards to its fit in the
overall Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Peterson told the Commission one of the comments the citizens have been
making at the community meetings concerning the Comprehensive Plan Update is they
have no interest in having any more commercial businesses along County Road I. The
citizens are saying that nobody should be forced out of their homes on Highway 10 to
accommodate more commercial business.
The question was posed to each of the Commissioners: Do you have any strong feelings
one way or the other in regards to the Walgreen Development location?
Commissioner Obert said that the development would be in the Highway 10 corridor, as
the citizens have requested, and he tended to be in favor of the location.
Commissioner Johnston agreed and added that making Eastwood a cul-de-sac would
improve the traffic conditions of the area.
• Commissioner Brasaemle told the Commission at this time he does not have strong
feelings about the issue. He said he needed more time and more information in order to
form a sound opinion.
Director Jopke asked the Commission if there is some information that the staff could
provide to make the issue more clear.
Commissioner Brasaemle requested the County's traffic information on County Road I.
- -- • - • - ' -
of the affected properties.
Associate Ericson reminded the Commission the next Comprehensive Plan Update
meeting is scheduled for March 11, 1998, to be held at the Edgewood School. The focus
will be on District No. 2.
Chairperson Peterson stated three agenda items for the next Planning Commission
meeting:
1. Property value appraisal
• 2.
3. Traffic issues
livability of the development area
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
• Special Meeting Page 12
8. Staff Reports/Information
a. Planning Commissioner Journal Publication
The Commissioners acknowledged receipt of same.
b. Recap of February 11, 1998 Community Forum Meeting
Director Jopke requested that the team leaders of the round table discussions turn in the
responses to the discussion agendas so the final report can be put together.
Commissioner Brasaemle stated a list of discussion generating questions would have
helped his group focus on specific issues relating to the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Several of the Commissioner stated that they enjoyed the open form platform because it
gave their group fewer boundaries for discussion.
9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
No Chairperson or Planning Commissioners Reports were considered.
10. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting
There being no further business before the Special meeting of the Planning Commission
Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/.pow
�f �
Rick Jopke
Community Development Director
•
S
Planning Comm. Mtg February 18, 1998
Please Sign In !
Name Address Phone # Project
t, •
, 0,./Lia-v, t_ 7.2-zie,-•,---(___,
9Ye'; 4//D/9/1/ --) /1
'/' ,
77/c CE ;
C 11
'...-) (1 - :\ne/ ('
l'i i'l --)`-'(.) e)fm-n,'...:,-,4c-
,, pi, ...,..2.1 ,-,141....1
iA...)c..---ty_...2.2.-4,.....
t.J(41-:%Iee,
77 3 c C.,- 1 t,‘,..,‘ Lc!: ,-,(*A Y •-"(' - c/?---ir-'V________Z__=, _i_t_u_.,___,/(...;-Ici ,,, ----1_,/
-1114.1;.- Le.:•. -),---, -7R61 r. 0,›ii,L)L,0 d K,d -/E;( ' i ci 7( LA3,1, tev‘5
,
k ' 7—I .=5-----t
/ -.3 57ti,
;,,,,,, 1 , .,. !
, ti 4 A. (, \ . i,s_ . , y
t't
L \ f /(i 7
',[{,J
(-N.nt-L -.)-2 tic' -Pmec-„A'c d (a. 7;,--"Ti/6 /1
lu,
/
2 44-,C) cUtkc '.. r A ,&( - -7 -tc (C.
_ . e .(YCi(2.) ,k,
'\ t ( (1\6k -n — CT !„( , ,
,4 ,,,,, _, ( J
--nu
, ).-• ,
•-__.\ \ m Cri)\- k C.-- Q-- VA.: '41-1-1., tc,', 3
10 I
-71
P2x.- '-"- riA:Cri 11-, (--T1L-..,f,14/-;.)077 tUArdAjiKIORAIAA 184 00 tA)MA)(9(9n tit b 4-c-21,t't k 20, ti 000
•
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 535-98
• CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE SATURN DEALERSHIP AT 2375 AND 2395
HIGHWAY 10; PLANNING CASE NO. 512-98
WHEREAS, Saturn Development has requested City approval to expand its dealership at
2375 Highway 10 to include the property at 2395 Highway 10, to expand building square footage
and add a car wash, and to expand the types of repair services available; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council approved Resolution 5042 on 12/9/96
approving a development review and conditional use permit for Saturn Development to expand its
facilities and to allow for automotive sales and repair and a car wash; and,
WHEREAS, Saturn Development did not implement the approved 1996 site plans; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
• 1. Planning Application dated 1-12-98
2. Zoning and Location Map
3. City Council Resolution 5042
4. Site Plans dated 1/9/98
5. Revised Site Plan,dated 2/12/98
6. Revised Photometric Analysis,dated 1/30/98
7. Ramsey County Request for Property Combination,dated 2/5/98
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the following dimensional
requirements as set forth in Chapter 1104 of the Municipal Code have been met:
Dimensional Requirements: Required Provided Met/Not Met
Building Height: S 45 feet 20 feet Met
Building Setbacks
Front (Highway 10): 30 feet 115 feet Met
Rear(County Rd. I): 20 feet 37 feet Met
East Side: 10 feet 60 feet Met
Parking Lot Setbacks
Front (Highway 10): 30 feet 30 feet Met
Rear(County Rd. I.): 5 feet 6 feet Met
East Side: 5 feet 10 feet Met
• Parking spaces
Customer: 22 spaces 23 spaces Met
Employees: 27 spaces 28 spaces Met
Planning Commission Resolution 535-98
Saturn Dealership Development Review
• February 18, 1998
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the site plans dated 1/9/98
conform to the requirements concerning car washes, automotive repair and automotive sales as
stated in Section 1114.04; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the Mounds View City Council that the development review requested
by Saturn Development be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall revise the site plans prior to City Council review to show how
stormwater run-off will be captured and detained if on-site detention is required by the
Rice Creek Watershed District.
2. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall accomplish the following:
a. Obtain access and grading permits from MnDOT and Ramsey County if required
and provide proof of such permit or permission to the City.
b. Obtain a Rice Creek Watershed District permit.
• c. Remove the two incidental directional signs from the County Road H2 right of
way.
d. Enter into a development agreement with the City.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 18th day of February, 1998
Jerry Pet on, Chairperson
ATTEST:
TA,...,______
Rick Jopke, Comimunity Development Director
•