HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-1998 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
• MARCH 4, 1998
7:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING,PLEASE COME TO THE PO)rum,
AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES
4. Planning Case No. 513-98
Property Involved: 8265 Spring Lake Road
Consideration of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a Seven Foot Variance to the
Required 30-foot Front-Yard Setback.
Applicant: Preferred Builders, Inc.
• 5. Planning Case No. 507-97
Property Involved: 2625 Highway 10, 7715 -7761 Eastwood Road
Discussion Regarding Walgreens Development Request
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning
Applicant: Told Development Company
6. Staff Reports/Information Items
a. Recap of 2/26/98 Highway 10 Design Theme Workshop (verbal report) .
7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
8. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS
REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY CITY HALL AT 717-4000
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. THANK YOU.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
•
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
March 4, 1998 1111
(Immediately Following Regular Meeting)
AGENDA MEETING
AGENDA
1. Review of Minutes:
a. February 4, 1998
b. February 18, 1998
2. Meeting Adjournment
i
•
r
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMO
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Steve Dorgan, Housing Inspector
Subject: Planning Case No. 513-98: Variance for Preferred Builders
Date: February 27, 1998
At the Planning Commission meeting on February 18, 1998,the commission tabled the variance
request by Preferred Builders until the March 4th regular meeting. The commission requested
the city attorney make an interpretation regarding the language of the Purchase Agreement
between the EDA and Preferred Builders pertaining to the minimum site requirements for the
subject site. Specifically, whether the city is obligated to approve a variance based on the site
requirements of the Agreement.
Attached is a letter from the city attorney providing an interpretation of the Purchase Agreement
language. Also enclosed is a copy of the staff report,proposed "as built" survey of the proposed
lot and Planning Commission Resolution#532-98.
M1
Steve Dorgan
Housing Inspector
717-4023
Attachments: 1) Letter from City Attorney
2) Planning Commission Report
3) Proposed "as-built" Survey- 8265 Spring Lake Road
4) Planning Commission Resolution#532-98
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\513-98\PC-3 4.MEM
•
Feb-27-98 01:09om From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN 6123379310 T-825 P.02/03 F-090
470 Pillsbury Center
Kennedy 200 South Sixth Street DflWi
Minneapolis MN 55402
(( � (612) 337-9300 cdcphunc FEB7ID
l:f riven (612) 337-9310 fax 2 1998
e h A RTER EP e-mail.attysQkcnnedy-gravcn.com
By
SCOTT J. RIGGS
Atwmey of Law
Diract Dial(612)337-9260
annul:ang kmaady-gtuvcn.mu
February 27, 1998
VIA FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL
Mr. Steve Dorgan
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Muuncib View, MN 55112
RE: Review of EDA/Preferred Builders Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement
Dear Steve:
Per your request, I have reviewed the Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement as to the
•
Minimum Improvements required to be constructed pursuant to the Agreement. The pertinent
sections provide as follows:
1. The fourth "Whereas"clause in the Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement states
that "the Developer proposes to construct on the Property a 1900 sq. ft. three bedroom
modified two story single family residential home, including two full bathrooms and a
three car garage, with an estimated market value of$145,000." (Emphasis added).
2. The definition section of the Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement states that
"'Minimum Improvements' means the construction of a 1900 sq. ft. three bedroom
modified two story single family residential home, including two full bathrooms and a
three car Rarage, with an estimated market value of$145,000." Section 1.0(k) (emphasis
added).
3. Exhibit C to Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement -- Housing Development
and Site Criteria notes at Paragraph 2.d. that "1 al two-car attached garage is required."
(Emphasis added).
As discussed, throughout the Agreement reference is made to construction of the Minimum
Improvements on the Property. A review of the above provisions leads to the conclusion that
they are somewhat inconsistent as to the Minimum It nprovements to be constructed pursuant to •
the Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement.
Based on the above, you asked: Is the City obligated to provide a variance for the Developer
SJR.390s
x725-5
Feb-2T-98 01:09pm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN 6123379310 T-825 P.03/03 F-090
• February 27, 1998
Page 2
to build the Minimum Improvements it desires to construct? The basic answer is no, since ce the
EDA cannot generally obligate the City to grant a va'iance.
Additionally, it appears from my understanding of discussion concerning this matter that the
Developer can construct a three car garage on the property without the granting of a variance by
the City. Likewise, pursuant to the Agreement, if a variance is necessary, it is the Developer's
obligation to obtain all necessary permits, etc. for the construction of the Minimum
Improvements. If the Developer can show some type of hardship (whatever that may be), a
variance may then be applied for at the request of the Developer, but the Agreement itself does
not require the granting of the variance. Such variance request would be independent of the
Agreement and, pursuant to City Code, the burden of sustaining such request would be that of
the Developer.
I hope the above adequately addresses the issues you had raised. If you should have any
questions or comments regarding this matter, please cio not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
. .e5eel_
' • ,'.
Scott J. Rig .
SJR:s
cc: Mr. Chuck Whiting
Mr. Bob Long
III
33R139024
NUM-5
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION •
1
Meeting Date: February 18, 1998
Staff Report by: Steve Dorgan, Housing Inspector •
Planning Case No.: 513-98
Applicant: Preferred Builders, Inc.
Request: The applicant is requesting a 7 foot Variance to the required 30
foot building setback from a public right-of-way along Ardan
Avenue for the construction of a new single-family home at 8265
Spring Lake Road.
Location: 8265 Spring Lake Road
PIN No. 06-30-23-23-0003
Zoning/Land Use: R-1- Single Family Residential
LD -Low Density Residential
Attachments: Planning Application •
Location Map
Hardship Statement •
Encroachment Map
Building Plan
Lot Survey of Previous Home
Planning Commission Resolution# 532-98
Applicable Regulations:
Section 1104.01, Subd. 3., requires a 30 foot building setback when abutting a public
street.
Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines the criteria to be used by the Planning Commission in
its review of variances. The following criteria are individually addressed in Planning
Commission Resolution 532-98:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the properties which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or
shape,topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since
the effective date hereof have had no control.
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of •
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this
Title.
Planning Case No. 513-98
8265 Spring Lake Road
• February 18, 1998
Page 2
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in
the same district.
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose
such restrictions and conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be
necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize
• the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry
out the intent of the variance.
Background: •
In 1996, the Economic Development Authority(EDA) acquired the proposed lot through the
Housing Replacement Program(HRP). The existing building was then razed and the lot cleared.
The property is located on a corner having dimensions of 80'x 218'. According to City Code, a
100' frontage is required for a corner lot in the R-1 Zoning District. In September of 1996, at the
time the lot was owned by the EDA,the Planning Commission granted a 20 foot variance to the
100 foot lot width requirement for a corner lot to recognize the existing 80 foot lot width.
On January 30, 1998, the EDA sold the proposed lot to Preferred Builders, Inc. As part of the
purchase agreement, Preferred Builders is required to build a minimum of a 3 bedroom 2 bath
home with a two car garage. The home the applicant is proposing meets all site criteria as
outlined in the purchase agreement with the EDA. However, the home is 7 feet wider than the
maximum building width allowed by City Code for the proposed lot.
Hardship:
The applicant indicates that a hardship exists because a standard corner lot would be at least 100
feet in width and would accommodate the proposed home. The proposed home is 52 feet wide
with a three car garage. The applicant claims that the current market demands homes with a
three car garage. Because the lot is only 80 feet in width and located on a corner with 30 foot
• setbacks along each public road, the proposed home would need to encroach approximately 7
feet into the building setback of the road right-of-way along Ardan Avenue.
Planning Case No. 513-98
8265 Spring Lake Road •
February 18, 1998
Page 3
Analysis:
According to City Code Section 1104.01, Subd. 3., a 30 foot building setback is required along
all public streets for lots located in the R-1 zoning districts of the city. The applicant is
requesting an additional 7 feet to build the proposed home. The lot is 80 feet in width and is
located on a corner which creates some site constraints. The home previously located on the lot
was 19.4 feet from the public road right-of-way along Ardan Avenue (see attached lot survey).
The proposed home would be 23.1 feet from Ardan Avenue.
Orienting the home to Ardan Avenue would not alleviate the variance request for the proposed
home and would most likely require an additional variance. An orientation of the home to
Spring Lake Road would allow for a home with a maximum width of 45 feet. Therefore, the
construction of a single family home with a two car garage would be accommodated on the
proposed lot without the need for a variance.
The proposed variance fails to meet hardship criteria for granting a variance as outlined in
Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 of the City Code. The proposed lot will support the construction of a 3
bedroom, 2 bath single family home with a 2 car garage as required in the EDA's Housing
Replacement Program site criteria. The specified site criteria is a minimum requirement of the
purchase agreement the applicant has with the EDA for the proposed property.
ID
Recommendation:
Approve 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.
1
Steve I or
Housing Inspector
717-4023
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\513-98\513-98PC.RPT
•
* * 2422 Enterprise Drive
* Mendota Heights, MN 55120
I PIONEER LAND SURVEYORS - GIME ENGINEERS (612) 681-1914 FAX 681-9488
* eni neer r1 -'LAND PLANNERS'.tANDSCAPE RCHITECTS , 625 Highwo 10 N.E.
•
Blaine, MN 55434
, * ** (612) 783-1880 FAX:783-188.3
Certificate of Survey for: PREFERRED BUILDERS
House Address: 8265 Spring Lake Road I
(80.00 plat)
• FNO ,P 80.37 measured ,pi
11TIOVill--N
FEB 051998
`vo
L.
a
vCI 0
0 34 °
. a g g a
35 0E Eooi co PI 6
NIn CDN W
(21.....•ci N
5.00 , 23.12
1 44,00
o PROPOSED HOUSE r
N 12 CRS. 1394T. N
$ 7.33 0 12.67 (30) '?
1 O" _L— ---\="- - w 23.1 -sm.4
N 8
GARAGE .
NN
11.00 O 21.60 -- --- � .�.
5.00 23.D4
DRIVEWAY
a 40
2 R1 n
*POSED BUILDING OVATIONS
Lowest Floor Elevation: --s
Top of Block Elevation: FN0 IP 80.00 1
Garage Slab Elevation:
SPRING LAKE ROAD
sow) Denotes Exfstino Elevation
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 532-98
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DENYING A 7 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT
BUILDING SETBACK FROM A PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG ARDAN
AVENUE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT
8265 SPRING LAKE ROAD;
PLANNING CASE NO. 513-98
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request of
Preferred Builders, Inc. to allow a 7 foot variance to the required 30 foot building setback from a
public road right-of-way for the construction of a single family home at 8265 Spring Lake Road;
and,
WHEREAS, this property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is legally
described as:
The North 53 feet of the West 218 feet of Lot 34, and the South 27 feet of the West 218 feet of
Lot 35, all in Auditors Subdivision No. 89,Ramsey County
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents associated
with this request:
1. Planning Application
2. Location Map
3. Building Front Elevation
4. Letter from the Applicant
5. Encroachment Map
6. Survey of Previous Home
WHEREAS,the applicant requests a 7 foot variance to the required 30 foot building
setback from a public road as required in Section 1104.01, Subd. 3, of the Mounds View
Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant presented a hardship statement to the Planning Commission
stating that the lot dimensions were substandard for a corner lot and that the proposed home
cannot meet the setback requirements without a variance; and,
WHEREAS, there are no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that apply to this •
property that would justify the granting of this variance request; and,
Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-98
• February 18, 1998
Page 2
WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the City Code does not deprive
the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district; and
WHEREAS, the conditions which necessitate the variance request were known by the
applicant prior to purchasing the property in that the applicant is not required to build a home at
the proposed size; and
WHEREAS, granting this variance requested will confer on the applicants a special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same
district in that building setbacks from a public street require a 30 foot setback in the R-1 zoning
district; and,
WHEREAS, the variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title and
to other properties in the same zone in that the building setback would be 7 feet less than what is
allowed by Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission
acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denies the variance request of Preferred Builders,
Inc. for a reduction in the building setback requirement to a public right-of-way from 30 feet to
23 feet for the construction of a single-family home at 8265 Spring Lake Road.
Adopted this 18th day of February, 1998
ATTEST
Rick Jopke,
Community Development Director
SEAL
• N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\513-981532-2-98.RES
• Planning Commission
Memo
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Jim Ericson, Planning Associate
SUBJECT: Walgreens Development Proposal
DATE: March 4, 1998
At your last meeting on February 18, 1998, the issue of whether or not it would be appropriate to
rezone residential properties and amend the comprehensive plan to allow for the development of a
Walgreens store at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and County Road I was discussed. The
Commission made it clear that a decision regarding the applicant's requests would not be
forthcoming until some point after the next Comprehensive Plan Community Forum meeting, set
for March 11, 1998. It was mentioned, however, that the Commission would like to be kept
41) apprised of any new information as it becomes available.
The applicant has been in contact with the adjoining property owners and would like to report on .
this aspect of the process. I have been in contact with both MnDOT and Ramsey County traffic
engineers, both of whom expressed some level of concern regarding the proposal. Their
comments, while not available the day this memo was drafted, will be presented and discussed at
your meeting. We have also received copies of the accident data for Highway 10 and the streets
intersecting Highway 10. This has not been included with this memo as it is not in a readable
format. Hopefully I will have this data translated by the night of the meeting.
For the Commission's information, the 60-day date for the rezoning and comp plan amendment
falls on March 30, 1998. I have notified the applicant that the City would be exercising its right
for an additional 60 days, bringing the date by which a final decision is to be reached to May 29,
1998.
N:\DATA\GROUPS\COIvDEV\DEVCASES\507-97\507-97.PC3
•
Date:
FDa
Jim 0 Feb 1998 16:10:32 -0500
From: Ericson<moundsview@freenet.ms
Subject: Chris Richardson .mn.us>
Re: Commercial
mmercial encroachment
Dear Jim Ericson
i
Any time that an external obsolescence,
even just a large buildinge, noise, traffic
most evident when the hthat blocks sunlight, ' Parking lot
rentals. gh , there is some loss of value tod resider
You areas kin homes are single family aloe residential pro' maybe
developers m g the effect of one�o perhaps lessY are
may perceive about o but the when the Pent
properly values. opportunity public multifamily
'
ty to create a trend, a neighborhood may
perceive a trend,with
Downward due to adverse ghborhood in transition
economic life the individual neighborhood c with changing
commercial structures, vidual buildings due to the°editions and a ov l shortened remaining
The reality lectures' and this can brie hood ofremov
ti is usually much less dramatic,g with its valuesl and replacement ilinr with
store will be the Peculation that land
McDonalds fought
but in especially where the will increase sharply.
ght forp four Some cases the residents have iS opposition.
1
changes fromYears before being convinced that this
their usual s grantedpermissionstrong d andtthe tIno W
changes tetyle, using instead antiquenotoweringild Warner NH
denied twice fighting with the town °f store front the site
• and now headed for court,Hopkinton , no plan involved
In both of these �for the right to Sign' Rite-Aid
cases it was notjust in a town with a build,
impacted and would s the immediate strong presencewhof
impossible to suffer a loss inneighbors but the antique Colonial ho
buildingprove for but theappeal' The case of whole town very
felt it wasohomes.
I tank a good case could the
immediate neighbors, a loss in value would be ve
evidenced in longerghbors, but for those in �'hard if not
in low market t' be made for loss _
lower time is Imes, smaller of value, much sight of the new co
Now, as to money, but generally Pool ofpotential buyers through ift omarkdidn'ti meal
how much?? there is evidence of lowered offer
What I could and even the offers didn't oma
your community pull out of
ty and certainly would havemy files amounts o well.
and he could cite a few examples
no direct Wight not be what
and if appraisere has keptam les basedappear neighborhoods,iYou should contact a old see in
bean a fide of P on similar
g next s a Paired sales he rrua lOSSlocal
in the r commercialle ofdistrictre might be able toPrice r
range of 5% or and several bloc state what l pro of value
°f hetero
the amount of screening,
but probably � back. You could alUe was be
sound, 10% ut pr y not a whole lot higher. Probabl between
and the presence especially adverse coedit conditions Could blocAdditional variables y eXpe something
so an increase in traffic lights and deaden would include
with the neighborhood aenc wouadvt reallythat were include
hhborhood could comment be noticed. already the there such
Pretty rongly that homes in o These cot sort cot • i being on a busy road
close n, but absent f so hangs that someone familial
Sony I can't be proximity would suffer commercial conditions I feel
have more questionsY more specific, but I hopesome loss.
Regards, this has been some help. Get back to
Chris Richardson
Date: Frig 20 Feb 1998 16:10:32 -0500
• To: Jim Ericson<moundsview@freenet.msp.mn.us>
From: Chris Richardson
Subject: Re: Commercial encroachment
Dear Jim Ericson
Any time that an external obsolescence, noise, traffic, parking lot and advertising lights, maybe
even just a large building that blocks sunlight, there is some loss of value to residential property,
most evident when the homes are single family and perhaps less when they are multifamily
rentals. You are asking about the effect of one store but the public may perceive a trend, or
developers may perceive an opportunity to create a trend, a neighborhood in transition with changing
property values.
Downward due to adverse neighborhood conditions and a shortened remaining
economic life of the individual buildings due to the liklihood of removal and replacement with
commercial structures, and this can bring with it speculation that land values will increase sharply.
The reality is usually much less dramatic, especially where the public is convinced that this
store will be the exception, but in some cases the residents have strong opposition. In Warner NH
McDonalds fought for four years before being granted permission to build and the site plan involved
changes from their usual style, using instead antique store front, no towering sign. Rite-Aid
pharmacy is fighting with the town of Hopkinton NH for the right to build,
denied twice and now headed for court, in a town with a strong presence of antique colonial homes.
• In both of these cases it was not just the immediate neighbors but the whole town that felt it was
impacted and would suffer a loss in appeal. The case of a loss in value would be very hard if not
impossible to prove for all but the immediate neighbors, but for those in sight of the new commercial
building I think a good case could be made for loss of value, much through loss of marketability
evidenced in longer market times, smaller pool of potential buyers and even if the offers didn't come
in lower time is money, but generally there is evidence of lowered offer amounts as well.
Now, as to how much?? What I could pull out of my files might not be what you would see in
your community and certainly would have no direct applicability. You should contact a local
appraiser and he could cite a few examples based on similar neighborhoods, price range of homes,
and if he has kept a file of paired sales he might be able to state what a loss of value was between
being next to a commercial district and several blocks hack You could probably expect somethin
in the range of 5% or 10%but probably not a whole lot higher. Additional variables would include
the amount of screening, especially trees which could block lights and deaden
sound, and the presence of adverse conditions that were already there such as being on a busy road
so an increase in traffic wouldn't really be noticed. These are the sort of things that someone familiar
with the neighborhood could comment on, but absent any commercial conditions I feel
pretty strongly that homes in close proximity would suffer some loss.
Sony I can't be any more specific, but I hope this has been some help. Get back to me if you
have more questions.
Regards,
•
Chris Richardson
10.
At 12:43 PM 2/20/98 -0800, I wrote:
• ,
`Lam the Planner for a small suburb of St. Paul/Mpls, and we have been approached by Walgreens,
who would like to build a store in an area that is currently residential. The residents that would then
be adjacent to the store are concerned that their property values will decrease as a result. Are there
any studies that you know of that would support this(or reports, articles, etc.)?"
•
•
03/04/98 WED 17:47 FAX 6124825232 RAMSEY CO PUBLIC WORKS 10002
,
I Department of Public Works
Paul L'.Kirkwold,P.E.,Director and County Engineer
ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS
ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY 3377 N.Rice Street
Shoreview,MN 55126
50 West Kellogg Blvd.,Suite 910
RAMSEY�� St.Paul, MN 55102• (612)266-2600•Fax 266-2615 (612)484.9104•Fax 482-5232
4
March 4, 1998
Mr. Jim Ericson
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
Dear Mr. Ericson:
The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the
plans for the Walgreens Development proposed along County
Road I east of TH 10 .
The plan shows removal of the Eastwood Road city street
access onto County Road I and the construction of one full
• access point onto County Road I at the east end of the
property The County has reviewed the development plans and
the traffic study prepared for this development. The County
would like to make the following comments regarding the
proposed access onto County Road I.
1 . The County supports the closure of Eastwood Road onto
County Road I. This city street is located very close to
Highway 10 and poses operational problems at the
intersection.
2 , The traffic study concludes that the access from Walgreens
a ic. e
eastbound left turn into and out of the site will operate
at an acceptable level of service. The County has reviewed
this and concurs that the median will not have to be
extended along County Road I past this driveway, The
projected number of left turns is low and should not
result in backing up of eastbound vehicles .
3 . The report states that a queuing analysis indicates that
westbound traffic will "hardly ever back up" past the
driveway if constructed 175 feet from Highway 10 . This
does not agree with information provided by HDR in a
Minnesota Department of Transportation Study. The Mn/DOT
• study concludes that the westbound queue will be 310 feet
in the am peak and 314 feet in the pm peak by the year
2005 with the existing geometrics. This will result in a
back up past the proposed entrance during both peak hours .
•
Mimesota's First Home Role Cnnnty
03/04/98 WED 17:48 FAX 6124825232 RAMSEY CO PUBLIC WORKS el003
•
The Mn/DOT study identifies construction of a westbound
right turn lane on County Road I at Highway 10 as part of
the geometric improvements to the Highway 10 corridor.
Ramsey County recommends that the construction of this
i right turn lane be part of the Walgreens development . The
City of Mounds View should require the developer to
construct this turn lane as a condition of the City' s
approval.
4 . The report states that the construction of the TH 118/610
connector will divert significant traffic away from
Highway 10 . This is expected with the initial opening of
the connector; however, Highway 10 is also expected to
return to its original level in the future .
5 . The developer will be required to obtain access permits
from Ramsey County for access and construction on County
Road I.
If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to
give me a call at 482-5209.
• Sincerely,
Daniel E. Soler, P.E.
Traffic Engineer
•
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
• CITY OF MOUNDS 'VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
February 4, 1998
Mounds*v City Hall
2410 Highway 10, Naunds 'Iew, MN 55112
"
A.
• .')4'4 '''''';'',%,"^ •eY'''
• -,x3r34 (,:-,Z.;•09",.. ...'<':tel,'•••',
1 Call To Order
,•A,,f, ,:f/ -TA..,..- .. ...A4
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson *,,,,er,4:eat 7:00 p.m., Feb o .iKVA, 1998.
'..ay-: •‘:',.:'4z,,,.„
'TV.!,•e"
2. • Roll Call 4''4`,NAart
nav,040,
Members present: Chairperson Peterson, Co 4. sioners 3650;04ohnston, Miller, Obert,
and Stevenson.
-ip• -.",.."4(,.,14...'
Members absent; Commissioner Elr aemle pl,xcus',4-14-04,
1;11
414,11DW
„:•• ;',,,,,i:...--
• Also present: Community D . dpmentrector Jd e, Planning Associate Ericson, and
Recorder Dave Hix. Counadison I2opmeinec as absent(Excused).
Sr --m-
Index to mutts ,..,- .,.- 4 <••
.•:w.,• ,;,-.. . •--..:: ,..:•:-
-f••:.,' Page
Plamiin:7. 4.. % 12-9:'-' 91. way 10; D evelopment Review, • 2
-. ..,7-.,<..- ;.,.. ' ' :.•••:"..PP•ie.,i 7 -
Saturn Dev,.04 go- 4 -•,./.7,,,t. ',.....M
,,$,...,,, ;;,..;* •4..4,..„5.,,,,,4.4..-
' .•,..:e.erp••.,. .,...,AVAX-V,..-..t..,
PlanningCase:OPZeT,HighwOrCounty Road I and Eastwood Road; 4
••;-4,',...,...,,,.., V'
Compreynswe Pl. e-• - 4 of -nt and Rezoning, TOLD Development Company
•p.*K.,,...„,,,,
"a • .ens
-,4-
...,
eaV .
1 = Approval of Minutes
, gi!,
':i:;•.:,4,:',,
Afex-: ....: .'
Recember 17, 1997
'''''•::: ',1°;7::::',•: ,. uary 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: :
4. Citizen Requests and Comments on Items Not a s "the Agen i ;:
No citizen requests and comments on items Not o f he age a a were coni.i �. ,00
aF z.. a# aM :s
Planning Case No. 512-97 "' - s
2375 Highway 10 1,
Applicant: Saturn Development '' ; >
Development Review `
The applicant, Saturn Develo;Ment, rept .ented byle e. Price, was present. III
„,z,
Associate Ericson told tit's.:' ommisst that S• fi.,..,:.;:, .
n n Development is asking the City to
renis- an expansion .fan :ff•t was a _ " 9 1'-0_ _ e City in 1996. The originally approved
se ...ys and p, :acility t I'fled and relocated per the new plan. Saturn
ryas .,,s.'... o the r aprt al to put t e car wash on the west side of the building and
ads'' ecbays t Mg ea 4: 'de of the building. This addition would create additional
show tioo spa for new' r:: s that will be introduced in the near future.
Adreti'�rv6 a:..Y .'
The .04014571::::'
mpervio S are not expected to change as a result of this project. Green
s p ace will remaint110;; The parking and outdoor storage areas will be reduced
.,.'1?-slightly. :_.ghtly. The Cit ,eg es 22 customer parking spaces and 27 employee parking spaces,
"_ for a total of 49 s .ces. Saturn is proposing 55 spaces distributed in a slightly different
y ` count. The Ci asking Saturn to redistribute their parking plan to meet the City
meg, standards.
^' ,, }w'o.er .. ..„,- r
. 4 ;99 CUP requirements (conditional use requirements) are met with one exception,
. 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
III
Watershed District has been contacted regarding the proposed project. The may require
r
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 recon mendi _ that the
following additional information be supplied by the apelicant: #s .;
1. More detailed information regarding the dra .ge for then "$ ;' <,y `
2. Revised photometric analysis showing fo0-Candle read gs to n Wines ho
adjoining streets and luminaire specificat., ,;,rte ,f t,
3. Documentation from Ramsey County ind 3 .4 '.t the three lots "., $ "n
combined. ''4':;;;; ,-4r,:64,
4. Indication from Rice Creek Watershed D' :-'r... a - , = or not on-site ponding will
0.be required. If so, the applicant shall revs.a the std=,m; * show how on-site
ponding will be provided. s ?
In addition, the following stipulations "ere r q b '4 � G`
'• " pry,.
1. Add notation to plans tha..:, ustomer_nampl
nd ern**,a ;;asking will be clearly marked
• and kept free of invenro, ve'. Shoe locatio of handicapped stalls.
2. Provide detail on pl <:- to ho 7 ash encl%e re will be constructed. Show
concrete pad.
Ass to Ericso, at $ at meet ;Q IM ed requirements would make it possible for
ti, { Y - • to brin : •- :d a reso u ion for this proposal.
H i em;
Jim Priv g ,,a- aturn'eV opm t, told the Commission that Saturn should do
whateve nectes; to meetAhe requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District. He
adder at theamo of asphalt area on the site is being decreased so there probably
Wuid be no ne o oiii ''te ponding. The lighting issue is being addressed and copies of
the requested spoati ons will be submitted to the City as requested.
1 : : Commissioner °tevenson told the Commission that one of his concerns now, as it was at
the time of ap val of the original development, is the Highway 10 right-of-way, and that
remaia�:r able for bike paths and trails.
xY .?
S ' 'ce 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.
K
-0
Commissioner Johnston suggested that all of the surrounding neighbor made aware
of the project. This would give them a chance to voice their oho;.' ' en" the Plan
comes back for approval. • R
•
Associate Ericson said the Development would b' . ni put on th ', Bend , R an :.
Commission meeting scheduled for February 18- , 8. 4.1ded the su• ',fig
neighborhood would be made aware of the meets _.. would have a c .,$ "' ‘o attend
and voice their opinions. f
6. :r ` 'cjI;, ,
Planning Case No. 507-97
Highway 10, County Road I &Eastwood Raft®
Applicant: TOLD Development Compan :' Valgree.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rem ing ‘.!.44-00'
;. < _
6
The applicant, TOLD De::'': �pment,_Fe presen
Associate Ericso 4 .4 Commissioa� ° .roposed rezoning on the property is from
r $en a . limite=t $. ;es A comprehensive plan amendment from high density and
low-. l= , esidenti neii borhood commercial will also be required.
In addition t:ill ez•ning and omprehensive Plan Amendment, other actions that will
be. -red •. $ -,,,,o.•sal to move forward are as follows:
. Major subdivision of the property, reorganizing the five parcels and vacated
Eastw000ad into one lot.
71' 2. A develpment review. .
3, Appr:.eng the vacation of Eastwood Road.
is ricson defined the Comprehensive Plan process for the benefit of the
"` iiaw
ad > nce. 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.
,
February 4, 1998
• Mounds View Planning Commission Page 5
Regular Meeting
This is
the reason that the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended for the
Walgreen Development.
.,
The Comprehensive Plan issues are:
ry :,
rov 6 x, A
y h = -/,
1 What kind of buffer is the developerP , 3.�
2. Traffic impact, a 40 percent increase •
in tr. ; ,. , y r , s.
3 Suitability for residential development. � ,
tax base. r
4. The impac on the City's � �
5 Green space
'.£7,0,1;;T,i .
The rezoning issues are: -`.,o N
to the ComprehensivBlan f;,,.
l, The relationship ,��; ..��� w;
developments, what a":;�:':: ,'
2.3 Surrounding P .a'i .. ;
opmen . 4;,
3, Demonstrated need for the de
III 4.5. Grading issues •x tel
Traffic impact, closing of, " astwoo, Road ;y
3 Lyf
6. Crime impact X H ,
� there was any verification to back up
Commissioner Johnsto �;`' ed Mr ngh .
z e ffi would fall in value by 15 percent if the
the st.tement made �:.�a �,; en tha , .�.(,r
a� au gham declined to comment.
Wady-+' project � � � .,..:
y.F � n r
7730 ,.,,, ;Qp4 drive, stated that she had a realtor appraise her property.
They : § ; s. Ke - ' �$,property would decrease in value by 10 - 15 percent if
The reams � y {�:
: g went`thi g .
the Walg �$ '
asked the Commission who would be
;•. amen Johnsn=��.;: � � eenwood Drive, if the Walgreen project is approved.T< >:.
"�� esponsible for th".:.`- .,ease in value of his property of answer
He asked the Commission to research this question and have some type
available at then ext meeting that involved the project.
r Obert suggested that the City use an independent real estate appraiser to
• � <.omm�s��dn
k,.Cproperties in question.
,•=. appraiser was available for the City's use
Associate Ericson stated that an independent it that the
and the City Attorney could be called in to answer questions of valuation imp
• Walgreen project might have.
Mounds View Planning Commission • February 4, 1998
410 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, statedshe hascoda: '°<about how traffic
would affect the residents' ability to safely use Hillvi. :, I ark. `S :;:;;,a td ••that the
Walgreen project would also bring with it more rets propertie p'4: S over- y
saturated rental property climate in Mounds Vie ;'''''''' ,f ,Y ,•
Bob Cunningham, with TOLD Development, '::' f-,4,, project develop '''Cd it is
the developer's desire to cooperate with the City an9 :, " :g""- .• bors. This could include
implementing traffic-slow-down designs into thele' "_> ,, . re-engineering existing
drainage problems to alleviate flooding in the prapertie )a:Io< :.0 -r on the development
site. , : ,,
yeyt
Mr. Cunningham stated that the b - .',o` C ,,"tio is ` .ercent; typically a retail
development lot-size-to- ratio is 20 ��� - _ 4
P building,, �" P �_ �:"tided that the average
number of cars entering into the;. algreen •ctlity woF $ :.s= six cars an hour at normal
times, with the number of carsmcreasin'a nine c �.er hour during peak-use periods. A.
y,
;3nA
Mr. Cunnignham told t.`,.;Commis rf that t .<roject would generate 35-45 jobs.
Appr ximately 15 2 ti jobs w.,Trak,� "'me with the balance being full-time, and
of. es there wo Yy execute -WAt4 a ns including manager, assistant manager, and
13*,' �$aeis''. "'; f vm€
Mr Jo nsa rr ed he '4,C-',1'- = the City on numerous occasions to close off Greenwood
Drive tolo • eltm ate som' a tl a •accidents that occur because of the high traffic flow on
tha,, eet arras:g-.-7..told 6 the City that Greenwood Drive cannot be closed off
.be44-
cause of Fire 0 : .$ 'erg, Police Department, and school bus use. However, now the
City is saying tha ` q ay to close off Edgewood Drive. Mr. Johnson said if Eastwood
ir can be closed offr tax-base reason, then Greenwood should be able to be closed off for
the safety conceafs of the residents.
k
,r , ommissitt er Obert suggested that all the facts, traffic counts, accident reports, etc., be
ect . o the discussions that are taking place can be based on fact and not on
..t ojjecture.
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.
111
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 Coun •,oad I.
Areas south of this would not be affected. ;:,
gig", :;ror4'•
Mr. Chen stated the studyshows that closingoff <::;'::�od air,,:: ' n_'>: e Walgreen
- ;.,, ,,,t,',, -,
project, 18 cars an hour would be added to the tr. (I/ ' flow on Gr ehwQ0 a. a 've.
X ,,4; •,,',.t-4,;,f,";' R Y ,
Ms. Polachek-King stated the study time was t4 4$hort to et a good a _��• {,
Ms. Keyes stated the traffic on Greenwood is muc :_1- 'n the summer because of the
' he didn't think the traffic
recreation that is taking place in Hillview Park. S 4..' ; :�:� - $s
count was accurate. -;w :,<.--
Mr. Chen stated the Walgreen project w ate. a -° d e an ad56 cars that would
enter into the Highway 10 County R�a 'linteG ring tm. peak hour. This is
1.2 percent of the total traffic that. =y n this intersCo ,,,a 4, given day.
John Wiens, 7760 Greenwo # '4 rive, •u tioned ` Chen's figures and stated his
Ak
concerns about the accurae, e s $'
1.
Mr. ::hen stated wR 40 t+ 610-11:� ' � �T completed, in 1999, there will be a
si• $' �-z7t decre. -�� con Hi , ` > : This will make Highway 10 a safer road to
y Y
Chairpiexso;l°eterson saioicw4.9,very disappointed when the pedestrian bridge over
Highwa 9 ca eled ssioner Obert agreed.
Chen told i,_ . dE _ sion at 714 cars per day, Greenwood Drive is well within the
Metropolitan Co s efinition of maximum traffic for a residential street's traffic count
for any given da
Ms. Keyes sate she would like to know the increased cost for the City to maintain the
ads th.attlire affected by the increased traffic. She asked if this information could be
F d br iii;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
effect on the adjoining residential properties.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission February 4, 1998
Regular Meeting Page 8IP
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. /
Joan Colleen, 2617 County Road I, said her concern were, ligen c, and the
easements that are involved. She asked who would; ponsi` ,taxes that
would be paid on the 45 feet of property that the 6,,,!would:,...
report: , eviy!` ! :ae given toj
adjoining neighbors. Would this be considered nic easerd.- or . 7 ca a ease trent,
she asked. ,, � ' 4 % -,
Associate Ericson stated the property would be o,,_ 3a�a . e developer and the
developer would be paying taxes on that prope ., _lf,;;
• w%j_
'yam, ,,>
Ms. Keyes said she is not interested in the last ecause she�woii h•ve to maintain it.
/ o.yl
Ms. Colleen said she is concerned the w atet *�a ded, -gards to the proposed
development, will in fact, happen a is agr- o
Associate Ericson assured . ,;°olleen t once th W resolution is established, and there is i•
a developers agreement, th a emend t: 1 be thea w. If the developer does not follow
through with the terms o77,5 e agree a there = 1r•e a performance bond to make sure
that the project will ' «;=pleted • � <'
a. '`? s: z sus y�d s ?,s
s =n Pet M X40 a audience the Comprehensive Plan review that includes
the `$ � land - 'dressed on February 11, 1998. He invited all interested
citizen et,
rsaa<. F a-
7. Sta K 1 epo .s h 0: tion I ems
irector Jopke t .4..,- Commission the first meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Update,
` area No. 1, will b, at the cafeteria of the Pinewood School on February 11, 1998.
I
:''-,,-s..‘„1'; Chairpersontand Planning Commissioners Reports
f nun oner Miller told the Commissioners she would be absent from the Planning
°f , .
, Mission 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.
{ry ,
Respectfully submitted, y'COYf, q�„„
,,,,,,i,,,,;;- if--,"41) ,,,,,:;'3,SY(,
yam. •” y
fi: // Yi� � �fN/
Rick Jopke r '=f'/%„%i x
Community Development Director %; ';;1„ijy� x,
- -.:n dun;u
4
•
xasi
ill 4,....„4”
x:
:...
a•' ..! ,
..ga r.y
.t/:: X`54,/` u- -4
•
$,q , •
mac..
:
' •a5 ''as�Yl� ir7 ic::
1
a.: £� ,
ay
x�a a :
•
III
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY 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 Mlller(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
g
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 Waigreen'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 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.
Future Coalition events will include a Coalition-wide working session for councils and
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.
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
is very interested in the I-35W Corridor Coalition because of this fact. The process is an
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
Special Meeting Page 3
• aggregated grass roots type of project, and this is what is spurring the interest of the
P g
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.
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
public transportation. He added that a trails system should also receive top priority in the
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.
Chairperson Peterson asked if there is a unified front on the Anoka County Airport
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
Special Meeting Page 4
110
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.
Steve Dorgan,Mounds View Housing Inspector, gave the Commission a brief
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. •
Staff is recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 532-98 denying a
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
Special Meeting Page 5
• 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
al 1 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
Setback to a later meeting, thus giving the staff the time that is required to resolve legal issues
with the City Attorney.
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
Special Meeting Page 6
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, combining of 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 Eghway 10 and the
greenspace therein could apply toward the 10 percent, thereby fulfilling the requirement.
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:
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
• Special Meeting Page 7
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.
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.
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
Special Meeting Page 8 •
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.
•
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 t
basis to work out their specific issues whether those issues be landscaping, drainage or
compensation amounts.
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
• Special Meeting Page 9
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 that 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.
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
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
Special Meeting Page 10 •
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
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
411
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
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
Special Meeting Page 11
accommodate more commercial business.
The question was posed to each of the Commissioner: Do you have any strong feelings
one way or the other in regards to the Walgreen Development location?
Commissioner Obert sad 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.
• Commissioner Obert agreed and added there is a need for the proper real estate appraisal
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. Traffic issues
3. livability of the development area
8. Staff Reports/Information
a. Planning Commissioner Journal Publication
• The Commissioners acknowledged receipt of same.
b. Recap of February 11, 1998 Community Forum Meeting
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998
Special Meeting Page 12
111
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,
•
Rick Jopke
Recording Secretary
•