Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-1998 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION March 18, 1998 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL 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 PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes: February 4, 1998 (Regular) February 18, 1998 (Special) 5. Planning Case No. 513-98 Property Involved: 8265 Spring Lake Road Consideration of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a Four Foot Variance to the Required 30-foot Front-Yard Setback. • Applicant: Preferred Builders, Inc. (This item was tabled at the March 4, 1998, meeting) 6. Planning Case No. 507-97 Property Involved: 2625 Highway 10, 7715 - 7761 Eastwood Road Consideration of Resolution No. 536-98 Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Request for Walgreen's Development Applicant: Told Development Company 7. Planning Case No. 515-98 Property Involved: 5394 Edgewood Drive Discussion Regarding Development Request for the Mounds View Community Center (formerly Bel-Rae Ballroom) Applicant: City of Mounds View 8. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Recap of March 11, 1998, Community Forum Meeting (second of three forums -verbal report) 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 10. 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 1111/ March 18, 1998 (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. March 4, 1998 (Regular) 2. Meeting Adjournment • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Steve Dorgan, Housing Inspector Subject: Planning Case No. 513-98: Preferred Builders Variance Request Date: March 18, 1998 At the last Planning Commission meeting on March 4, the commission tabled the variance request by Preferred Builders to the March 18th regular meeting. The applicant offered a compromise which would reduce the requested variance to 4 feet instead of 7 feet. The commission requested the item be tabled so that staff could provide an additional resolution for consideration which approves a 4 foot variance request. Preferred Builders submitted the application requesting the proposed variance on January 30, 1998. According to Minnestota State Statutes, development proposals must receive formal • action from the reviewing board within 60 days from the date of submittal. The 60 day time frame will expire on March 31, 1998. Therefore, action must be taken on the request at the March 18 regular Planning Commission meeting. As directed by the commission, attached are resolutions approving a 4 foot variance (Exhibit A), denying the requested 7 foot variance (Exhibit B) and approving the requested 7 foot variance (Exhibit C). Also enclosed are certificates of survey for both the 4 foot variance request(Exhibit D) and the 7 foot variance request(Exhibit E). Steve Dorgan Housing Inspector 717-4023 Exhibits: A) Planning Commission Resolution#532-98 (Approving 4 foot variance) B) Planning Commission Resolution#532-98 (Approving 7 foot variance) C) Planning Commission Resolution#532-98 (Denying 7 Foot variance) D) Certificate of survey showing proposed 4 foot variance E) Certificate of survey showing proposed 7 foot variance • NADATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\513-98\PC3_18.MEM EXHIBIT A MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 532-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A 4 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 4 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 27feet 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 4 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, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the • applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that homes in the surrounding neighborhood are comparable in size to the proposed home; and Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-98 • March 18, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the redevelopment of a substandard lot presents difficulties in the construction of the proposed 1,900 square foot home on the proposed lot as required by the Mounds View Economic Development Authority; and WHEREAS, granting this variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that the size of the proposed home is typical of the homes which currently exist in the surrounding neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title and to other properties in the same zone in that the proposed home would encroach less than the home which had been previously located on the lot. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves 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 26 feet for the construction of a single-family home at 8265 Spring Lake Road. Adopted this 18th day of March, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairman AUEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL • NADATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES1513-98\5324-98.RES EXHIBIT B MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION • RESOLUTION NO. 532-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING 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 27feet 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, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the • applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that homes in the surrounding neighborhood are comparable in size to the proposed home; and Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-98 • March 18, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the redevelopment of a substandard lot presents difficulties in the construction of the proposed 1,900 square foot home on the proposed lot as required by the Mounds View Economic Development Authority; and WHEREAS, granting this variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, strictures or buildings in the same district in that the size of the proposed home is.typical of the homes which currently exist in the surrounding neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title and to other properties in the same zone in that the proposed home would encroach less than the home which had been previously located on the lot. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves 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 March, 1998 Jerry Peterson, Chairman A 1-1EST • Rick Jopke, • Community Development Director SEAL • NADATAIGROUPS1COMDEVIDEVCASESl513-981532-3-98.RES EXHIBIT C • 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-FAM LY 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 3S, 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 • March 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 dimensions; 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 • Jerry Peterson, Chairman Ai-UEST Rick Jopke, Community Development Director SEAL • NADATA\GROUPSICOMDEV\DEVCASES\513-98\532 2._ 98.RES flax. -UJ IPS (MUM 13:33 PREFERRED BUILDERS TEL:612 780-2746 l -- EXHIBIT D - * * * 2422 Enen:rts. Orly. * PIONEER Mandato Helots. MN 55120 * en neer ngULNO 9,R s • CM. DIGNEE s - (812) 881-1914 FAX:881-9488 • LOC P+. 4N w . c .w sCE ail1ECTS 525 HI hmoy_10 N.E * Coln.. MN 55434 lir (612) 783-1880 FAX;783-1883 Certificate of Survey for. .PREF RRED BUILDERS House Address: 8285 Spring Lake moad 1 80.00ict Q ) 3 p 80. 7 measured ,, , ----Latta. A8[1 8661 9 0 8VW Ll.f] Ea OE@il • • o .....-. a as 34 0� 35 E $ o � m� I�nm N of.- W \.•N N... Q N i N C, . zoo . I I•4.02 25.13 • C . • "R PROPCISC3 110.15E . X R 1 CM.13911-. « • 1.33 a p. Q I a 10.0 4 t?bQ _____L____28.05 • moc\\: 1 Z rOPOSED BUII.DD�IG WA?1O]VB Lomat Floor Devotion: ____ ---0" ( rr Top of Block Elevation: __ �0 P I I on nn + / 2422 Ent.rpr I * PIONEERM.ndota Hsk EXHIBIT LAND s�,Rtierca s • av+t. ENGINEMS (612) 681 E engineering jo • Lu R,n„ 4' _ ._ _ 825 Htghra ' * * Encino. MN 554.34 (612) 783-1880 FAX 783-1883 I0 Certificate of Survey for. PREFER.R F,'D BUILDERS House Address: 8265 Spring Lake Road (80.00 Oct) • 80.37 measured F. ,P1 ,P -- 4 6 I —.4======.4ikia_.IT@1OTI FEB 0 5 1998 ii ' 1 o • o � Q 34 0 o ma 35 a E E0 1 m03 M°° Fs N O NZ% Q N N ,soo I 23.12 +4.ao 1 . Co PRCPOSED E+atsE ii - n 1z CRs es+r. N . irl 7.33 4:112.57 7 .(30) ., . boo t--'--�. M us "•' . AGE 8 7.'I � N 1 1`.00 L ,I� t 23.04 DRIVEWAY e iPOS7;D B4�.DING LLSVATIONS Lowest Floor Qevcrtlon: —..! 7 Top of Block Venation: FN0 P I 80. 0 /Garageslab Elevation: / .o Denotes Ex,strnr, Ft ;,M SPRING LAKERn A n COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT memo • TO: Planning Commissioners • FROM: Jim Ericson • • , Walgreens Comprehensive Plan Amendment • DATE: March 13, 1998 :• ••• • I was notifiediat theiiilAst.minutetro:ur City Attorney that comprehensive plan amendmeritsgequireHicipublichearingito be held not only with the City Council but alsolitheilifillanningliCommission. •:. .• . :. • • • •:. • •. : : . • • The reportit sent out recommended the Commission take acticiri•-•on'this requestiatiltsmeetingliVednesdayinighEi The publiciihearing notice:,,(whichillIllhaveattached for your reference) states that 411) the public hearing will be held onliApriiiiit, 1998, •:. I have already notified Mr. Cunninghamiof T.OLDIIDevelopment so that he is aware of the delay. As stated in theiiireporri;thei,deadline for action is May 29, • • 1998. :::•••• .• . . . . . . The results of the research done by American 'regarding commercial Intrusion into residential areas be hand delivered to you as soon as it becomes available, hopefully well in advance of your rogeOng on • .• Wednesday. •• •• • •••• ..••:... •!: • •• ••• Ili • • Nouce of lc Hearing CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission on Wednesday, April 1, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The applicant proposes to construct a Walgreens Drugstore at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and County Road I on the following legally-described property: The South .% of Lot 51,All of Lot S0,Lot 49 and Lot 78, Spring Lake Park Hillview, Ramsey County,Minnesota IIIAnyone desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heard at this meeting. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact me at 717-4022. If you are unable to attend this meeting but wish to comment, you may submit a letter or return this notice with your comments below to James Ericson, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. Your comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. James Ericson Planning Associate This public hearing notice was published in the March 18,1998 edition of the New Brighton Bulletin • • PlanningCommission Memo TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Jim Ericson, Planning Associate SUBJECT: Walgreens Development Proposal DATE: March 18, 1998 Background Information: At your last meeting on March 4, 1998, the Planning Commission was presented with supplemental information regarding the request made by TOLD Development Company to rezone residential properties and amend the comprehensive plan to allow for the construction of a Walgreens store at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and County Road I. This information concerned (1)the accident data for both County Road I between Long Lake • Road and Highway 10 and data for the intersection of Highway 10 and County Road I, (2) impact to values of adjacent properties, and (3) an update regarding the applicant's discussion with the adjoining property owners. The following represents a summary of that information. . (1)Accident Data. Discussions with the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer have revealed that the number of accidents on County Road I between Long Lake Road and Highway 10, excluding those occurring at either intersection, numbered only six during the last four years. Of these, four involved right-angle impacts from vehicles leaving Moundsview Square. Regarding accident data for the intersection of highway 10 and County Road I, a printout was generated for an almost two year period, beginning January 1, 1996 to November 12, 1997. There were 18 recorded accidents reported by either Mounds View Police or the State Patrol. Given the number of vehicles passing this intersection daily, the number of accidents that have occurred is relatively insignificant. The following represents some of the"mitigating circumstances" associated with the accidents. • 4 of the accidents occurred between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am • 5 of the accidents involved wet, snowy, icy or slushy road conditions • 2 of the accidents involved alcohol • 1 accident involved a bicycle • 1 accident involved a fixed object--the traffic semaphore Planning Commission Report TOLD Development Rezoning& Comp Plan Amendment March 18, 1998 Page 2 (2)Impact to Values of Adjacent Properties. Staff contacted two certified real estate appraisers to answer this question. Both responded that there would be some impact to adjacent properties, although the extent would be difficult to quantify without performing a thorough appraisal process. The important variables are the type of use proposed, the existing character of the surrounding area, location to major traffic arteries, setbacks, buffering, as well as other less critical criteria. To determine if there are any studies, research or data regarding the introduction of a commercial use into a residential area, staff contacted a representative of the American Planning Association's (APA) research division and requested that they send us any pertinent or relative information. While we had not received the results of their search by the time this report was written, we are confident that the information will arrive prior to the meeting on the 18th. Staff will deliver this information to the Commissioners immediately upon its receipt. (3) Update Regarding the Applicant's Discussion with the Adjoining Property Owners • The applicant has indicated that personal meetings have been conducted with all of the adjoining property owners and a cash settlement offer has been extended to them. It is not clear at this time whether or not any of the property owners have accepted the applicant's offer. The applicant will address this issue. New Information: Access Points. I have attached letters from Dan Soler, Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, and Scott Peters, MnDOT Senior Transportation Planner. Ramsey County will require that the developer improve the intersection of County Road I and Highway 10 by construction a right-turn lane on westbound County Road I onto Highway 10. From the County's perspective, the addition of the turning lane would alleviate enough of the congestion at the intersection and prevent stacking of vehicles beyond the proposed Walgreens access on County Road I. Dan Soler indicated that without the right turn lane, the median on County Road I would probably need to be extended back beyond the entrance to Walgreens, preventing full ingress and egress from the site. MnDOT's position with regard to the proposed right-in right-out access onto Highway 10 is that it will not allow for an access at this location due to (1) its close proximity to the intersection of the highway and county road and (2) because the property has an alternative means of access to Planning Commission Report • TOLD Development Rezoning& Comp Plan Amendment March 18, 1998 Page 3 the property via County Road I. Staff has not had any discussions with MnDOT or Mr. Peters to ascertain if there are any compromises that could be worked out with regard to the access point. Traffic Calming on Greenwood Drive. Staff has enlisted the assistance of Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works, to assess the possibility of adding some type of traffic calming measures to Greenwood Drive. This idea has been discussed at previous meetings as a possible means to both reduce and slow down traffic passing through the neighborhood. Mr. Ulrich has indicated that of the many possibilities, a mid-block diversion that would create a slight S-curve in the road might be acceptable. Staff is seeking the input of the City Engineer on this possibility. Analysis: Staff has presented the Planning Commission with two items for consideration at this meeting if the Commission so desires. Resolution 536-98 recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to the City Council while Ordinance No. 614 is the vehicle by which the properties are rezoned to reflect the B-2, Limited Business classification. Approval of the Ordinance can be done by a simple motion. One of staff's concerns with the rezoning is what would happen if, after the rezoning was approved, the applicant for whatever reason did not follow through with his plans to develop the site. The City would be left with four non-conforming single-family homes. This can be prevented simply by not publishing the Ordinance in the official City newspaper until after all of the other hurdles have been cleared, such as the major subdivision, vacation of Eastwood Road and the major subdivision. If the ordinance does not get published, it does not become effective. At this point, other than not knowing the results of the APA research results, staff is not aware of . I . I ' . I .i .. I . - se - _ --• . e e . . . . - . . .. -d rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment. If the developer has worked out a settlement with the adjacent properties, then the results of the APA research become less of a factor in a decision on these requests. Last, the date by which a final decision would need to be reached on these requests is May 29, 1998. Recommendation: 1. Staff recommends approving Planning Commission Resolution 536-98, a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a comprehensive plan amendment to change • the designations of the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road to NC, Neighborhood Commercial, allow for the construction of a Walgreens Drug Store. Planning Commission Report TOLD Development Rezoning& Comp Plan Amendment • March 18, 1998 Page 4 2. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission move approval of draft Ordinance No. 614, an ordinance amending the City's official zoning map by rezoning the properties located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road to a B-2, Limited Business District classification. Attachmnents: 1. Letter from Scott Peters,MnDOT, dated 3/2/98 2. Letter from Dan Soler, Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, dated 3/4/98 3. Ordinance No. 614 (draft) 4. Planning Commission Resolution 536-98 N:\DATA\GROUPS\CQMDEV\DEVCASES\507-97\507-97.PC4 • 11 e Q Minnesota Department of Transportation a Metropolitan Division OR TR, Waters Edge • 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 March 2, 1998 Jim Ericson ;I City of Mounds View u.. LIAR 0 6 199$ J 2401 Highway 10 ,,�, rL�. . Mounds View, MN 55112 By ' Dear Jim Ericson: SUBJECT: TOLD Development Company Site Plan Review S98-015 Northeast Quadrant of Trunk Highway(TH) 10 and County Road I Mounds View, Ramsey County C.S. 6204 The Minnesota Department of Transportation(Mn/DOT) has reviewed the TOLD Development Company site plan. We find the plan acceptable for further development with consideration of the •llowing comments. • We will not allow the proposed access to TH 10 because of safety concerns. The proposed access is only 150 feet from the TH 10/County Road I intersection. A distance of 480 feet is required to accommodate a right turn lane with a taper for this access. The site has adequate and safe access via County Road I. Regional policy developed by the Metropolitan Council discourages direct access to minor arterials from individual properties. The emphasis of TH 10 is to serve mobility as opposed to direct land access. Access to County Road I is more appropriate. Regional policy advocates land access management and control as tools in ensuring that minor arterials continue to operate efficiently and effectively. As one goal of the City's Focus 2000, initial highway corridor improvements have focused on a bike/pedestrian trail adjacent to TH 10. The future trail and safety of its users must strongly be evaluated when considering plans with direct property access to TH 10. . • We may require a Mn/DOT stormwater drainage permit for the proposed development. Please submit a grading/drainage plan for our review prior to site construction. This plan must include hydraulic computations and drainage area maps, showing existing and • proposed conditions and addressing 100-year storms. Existing drainage patterns and rates of runoff affecting TH 10 right of way must be perpetuated. Any questions regarding Mn/DOT drainage concerns may be directed to Gene Bovy of our Water Resources Section at 779- 5053. An equal opportunity employer Jim Ericson March 2, 1998 1111 page two • Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way will require an approved Mn/DOT permit. The permit required depends upon the nature of the proposed work. Bill Warden of our Permits Section may be contacted at 582-1443 for additional information regarding the permit process. Please contact me at 582-1654 with any questions regarding this review. Sincerely, Scott Peters Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison c: Dan Soler,Ramsey County Traffic Engineer Ann Braden,Metropolitan Council Transportation 110 • i Department of Public Works Paul L.Kirkwold,P.E.,Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS 50 West Kellogg Blvd.,Suite 910 3377 N.Rice Street t�AMSEY CouMY St. Paul,MN 55102• (612)266-2600 •Fax 266-2615 Shoreview,MN 55I26 (612) 484-9104 •Fax 482-5232 March 4, 1998 MAR 0 igQ8 Mr. Jim Ericson 1 City of Mounds View s 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 regardingth .proposed access onto County Road I . e • 1. The County supports the closure of Eastwood Road onto. County Road I. This city street is located very Highway 10 and poses operational problemclose thee intersection. 2 . The traffic study concludes that the access from Walgreens onto County Road I will not negatively impact traffic. The 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 th 0 2005 with the existingpmpeak by the year geometrics. This will result in a back up past the proposed entrance during both peak hours . Minnesota's First Home Rule County orintM nn......len ....._._._ _.-.. 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 right turn lane be part of the Walgreens development. The City of Mounds View should require construct this turn lane as a conditione of developer pCity'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 t give me a call at 482-5209. o Sincerely, Daniel E. Soler, P.E. Traffic Engineer 6 • ORDINANCE NO. 614 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REZONING OF FIVE PARCELS ABUTTING EASTWOOD ROAD FROM R-1 AND R-3 TO B-2 FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE TO BE LOCATED NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD I AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 10 AND AMENDING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Appendix A of the Mounds View Municipal Code entitled"Specific Rezonings", the City's Official Zoning Map and zoning district classification are hereby amended as follows: 1. The zoning district classification of the following described real properties are • amended from R-1, Single Family Residential to B-2, Limited Business: S '/2 Lot 51, Spring Lake Park Hillview (PIN#06-30-23-44-0032) N '/2 Lot 50, Spring Lake Park Hillview (PIN#06-30-23-44-0031) S 'A Lot 50, Spring Lake Park Hillview (PIN#06-30-23-44-0030) Lot 49, Spring Lake Park Hillview (PIN#06-30-23-44-0029) 2. The zoning district classification of the following described real property is amended from R-3, Medium Density Residential to B-2, Limited Business: SECTION 2. This Ordinance is effective thirty days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 13th day of April, 1998. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 27th day of April, 1998. Ordinance 614 Page 2 • Duane McCarty, Mayor ATTEST: Charles Whiting, City Clerk-Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert Long, City Attorney N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\DEVCASES\507-97\TOLD2.0RD • • MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 536-98 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2625 HIGHWAY 10 AND 7715-7761 EASTWOOD ROAD; PLANNING CASE NO. 507-97. WHEREAS, TOLD Development Company has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment which would change the designation of the property located at 2625 Highway 10 and 7715-7761 Eastwood Road from high and low density residential to neighborhood commercial; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties are described as follows: The South '/ of Lot 51,All of Lot 50,Lot 49 and Lot 78, Spring Lake Park Hillview, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Section 401.09 of the Mounds View Municipal Code states that the City has adopted the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mounds View, dated 1979, as its plan for future development and growth within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View adopted the 1979 Comprehensive Plan in 1982 by Resolution No. 1467; and, WHEREAS, the 1979 Comprehensive Plan places the subject properties in District 6 and deli l nates these .roped for both high and low density residential development as indicated by Exhibit 1, attached herewith; and, WHEREAS, both the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning map designate these properties for residential development; and, WHEREAS, there has been much community sentiment regarding the inappropriateness of future residential development fronting Highway 10; and, WHEREAS, in a study completed by SRF Consulting in April, 1997, the property at 2625 Highway 10 was deemed to be too restrictive for stand-alone development due to access • limitations and size constraints; and, Planning Commission Resolution No. 536-98 • March 18, 1998 Page 2 WHEREAS, the SRF study indicated that development potential of the property located at 2625 Highway 10 would be enhanced if combined with adjacent properties; and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings that the proposed amendment is consistent with the general land use goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: Goal 1. Develop a cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatibility and functional relationships among activities and uses. The change from high density and low density residential to neighborhood commercial will allow for the commercial development of the northeast corner of the Highway 10 and County Road I intersection, an intersection that already supports three corners of higher intensity commercial uses--a Hardees Restaurant and the Moundsview Square Shopping Center, a SuperAmerica gas station and convenience store, and a Burger King Restaurant. Given the high traffic counts at this intersection, it would seem more appropriate to use the land for commercial rather than residential development. The proposed amendment is in keeping with the community goal of limiting commercial development to the Highway 10 corridor. The neighborhood commercial designation is the least common designation • used in the comprehensive plan, representing less than one-quarter of one percent of the properties in the City. The proposed use would be set back approximately 130 feet from neighboring residential properties and separated by a minimum 70 feet of greenspace and other physical buffering. The neighborhood commercial designation, as opposed to the more intensive highway commercial designation, would in itself be a buffer to the adjoining residential properties. Goal 2. Maintain and, where necessary, upgrade land uses and environmental quality. The policy under this goal directs attention to protecting integrated use districts (residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, industrial parks) from penetration by through traffic. By virtue of its proximity to Highway 10 and County Road I, the residential district already experiences a penetration of through traffic. Redeveloping the subject properties for a commercial use will add to the existing traffic in this residential district. The tradeoff, however, is that Eastwood Road would no longer feed into the Highway 10 / County Road I intersection thus eliminating a notable point of conflict and with the addition of a right turn lane onto Highway 10 from eastbound County Road I, the overall functioning of the intersection will be significantly improved. • Goal 3. Preserve and protect property values. • Planning Commission Resolution No. 536-98 March 18, 1998 Page 3 It is hoped that in the long run, property values will increase with the introduction of a lower-intensity neighborhood commercial use at the corner of the most traveled intersection of the City. The positive impact to the City's tax base will serve to lessen the tax burden to residential properties across the City. Goal 4. Ensure community development is compatible with features of the natural environment and is accommodated without destroying desirable environmental features and natural amenities. Other than a few mature trees present on the subject properties, there are no natural environmental features or amenities that will be threatened or degraded as a result of the proposed development. The plans for development will include a system for capturing stormwater run-off for the subject properties which should improve conditions for properties immediately adjacent to the development. In so doing, the quality of the stormwater than now runs untreated into the City's sewer system will be significantly improved. Goal 5. Prevent development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services • and facilities (utilities, parking, access, etc.) The properties are located on Highway 10, a principal arterial and the major thoroughfare in Mounds View, and County Road I, a minor arterial street. While adequate opportunity for access to the development is available onto County Road I, access may not be possible onto Highway 10 because of the limited highway frontage. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will need to review and approve any requests for access onto Highway 10. Water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, gas and electric lines are available. Comments from the Blaine/Spring Lake Park/Mounds View Fire Department regarding access to the subject properties as well as to the properties on a dead-end Eastwood Road .•::_. . . : _ s v . 4•11 . - - . . i - Cu -,e-sac, no reduction in the level of service or response time would be expected. The parking requirements would be examined during the development review. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following additional findings that the proposed amendment is consistent with the commercial goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: Goal 1. Commercial development shall be considered in order to provide a broad tax and expanded employment base within Mounds View. • Redesignating the subject properties to allow for the development of a specific neighborhood commercial use will increase the City's tax base ten-fold and create 35 positions, more than Planning Commission Resolution No. 536-98 March 18, 1998 Page 4 half of which would be full-time positions. Many of the jobs created would be filled by Mounds View residents. Goal 2. Provide safe, convenient, attractive, and accessible commercial development within Mounds View. The development proposed at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and County Road I would be put through an intensive review process by which all aspects of the building design and site layout would be examined. The proposed use would be buffered from the adjacent residential areas by an expanse of greenspace, plantings and a fence. In terms of convenience, a neighborhood commercial use at this location would give those residents living north of County Road I and east of Highway 10 the ability to walk for certain goods and services without having to cross either thoroughfare, which are viewed as major barriers to pedestrian and other non-vehicular traffic. To encourage pedestrian use, the City would require that a sidewalk be extended to the site from Long lake Road on the north side of County Road I and there would be a pedestrian access from Eastwood Road to the north. 110, Goal 3. Major retail sales and services will be developed in planned and concentrated centers. Now that the majority of the available vacant land within the City is either developed or is slated for development, this goal may not be as applicable as infill development becomes more prevalent. However, if one considers that by locating on the fourth corner of an intersection already populated with higher intensity commercial uses, then this goal is met. The development will provide for its own stormwater retention and treatment system. Goal 4. The development of small, neighborhood convenience stores will be limited to locations which best serve residential areas without impairing residential development. Any development proposed for this site will be put through an intensive review process through which compatibility with the character of the surrounding neighborhood will be strongly encouraged. The access to the proposed use will be convenient for the surrounding community and non-vehicular traffic will be encouraged through the installation of pathways and sidewalks. WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan land use map designation for District 6 is proposed to be amended as shown on Exhibit 2, attached herewith. • • Planning Commission Resolution No. 536-98 March 18, 1998 Page 5 NOW, THEREFORE, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate the south l of Lot 51 and all of Lots 50, 49 and 78 to NC, Neighborhood Commercial. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs Staff to forward this Resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 18th day of March, 1998. • Jerry Peterson, Chairperson ATTEST: • Rick Jopke, Community Development Director (SEAL) N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEv\DEVCASESl507-97\536-98PC.REs Exhibit 1. Planning District 6 0 Existing Comprehensive Plan Designations 1 i \\ rdan Avenu LD I In V 1((- Sherwod Road MD o m > m > ° 1 o MD s o S T i 1:1 c LD 3L. • . CC MD c° CD N5,‘„ r 7o Nor NE Hillview Rcad o MA _ ,_„,,, HD _ LD - // C. C — Places of Worship HD -- High Density Residential 411VLD — Low Density ResidentialZ\ MD — Medium Density Residential P — Parks N S - Schools Date of Map: March 18, 1998 Exhibit 2. Planning ,[JTistrict 6 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designations • .L. ...v- ____,. , \ „ , ! , „, „ , ; , i , -,( Ardait avenue• --- --T '_' 1 . :-. Sherwod Road — — .- . I----i--1-73j j .-- - m • L---- '0 a a v Q 1 � _J � - J - - Li NiNs : F----i ' 3-.-- i- J ; : i _ IP r hlLa 1 l_ Hillview Road.. - —- — .y xt . Th-N-------______, f • I i C—Church HD--High Density Residential j LD--Low Density Residential MD--Medium Density Residential MI P—Park IL\ 411 1111 S—School N NC--Neighborhood Commercial Date of Map: March 18, 1998 • Planning Commission Memo TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Jim Ericson, Planning Associate SUBJECT: Community Center Development Review DATE: March 13, 1998 Because the planning report for the Community Center Development Review was not completed by the time the packet went out, the report for this item will be delivered to your homes on Monday or Tuesday. Thanks for your understanding. • • IF • PROCEEDINGS OF 'THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 4, 1998 Mounds View City Hall 2410 Highway 10, Mounds V,.,70,-, MN 55112 �r " 1. Call To Order $uK . = 1111 a Mounds View planning Commission March 4, 1998 • Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Planning Case No. 513-98 < 8265 Spring Lake Road Applicant: Preferred Builders, Inc. _: Consideration of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a 7-fo: :rianc= -:g .. • •uired 30-foot Front-Yard Setback. ,. y. s. £.s:'s((Rr,' f i The applicant, Preferred Builders, Inc., was pres- 36 ' �" `"21 s"" '`Gxd:s"`sJ%fKis xy s.��. fix. Inspector Dorgan referred to the February 27, .:11,0:. Commission Memo which reminded the Commission Members that on Fe• ary 1•,',�_� . #.;.Commission tabled the Variance Request byPreferred Builders in o >E . allow t : `-< n.> `�_ q _•et an opinion from the City Attorney in regards to languages ` tamed i` a urchase agreement that Preferred Builders had with the E ti,i° o ; g 8 $, ed pr .erty. mac .. ' �:� ,.. tff Staff asked the City Attorney th .11 >€ r< owinm esti,`'� City obligated to provide a variance for the Developer te.,€,a ; d the mum #:Arovements it desires to construct? • The City Attorney respond;g'« he 13‘.--,':" .:-,' "answer i `o, since the EDA cannot generally obligate the City toan : §ariance Y L' e, pursu - . • greeme.,:; 4 .riance is necessary, it is the Developer's af.),Z.,1014),,,,11,iL obtati : `'. ,.ary perms s, etc. for the construction of the Minimum, If the - i '«�.; can show some type of hardship (whatever that ma be), a van. -`. : en be a i.$N :;_;>:.. '.t the request of the Developer, but the Agreement itself dt,4 g �& , - the g' _, -,1 `g of a variance. Such request would be independent of th- `'_ veeme ':'g: ,.' : . ::.suant b City Code, the burden of sustaining such request would $`•that of the D ,4 se :a Chairperson Pe r ;fson returned the floor to the Commission for questions and comments. Commission. i•Stevenson asked if the proposed plan had been reworked to allow for the 5 '` '>> ernat -foot variance as had been proposed at the Planning Commission Special ' � o- _ -1d Feb s ruary 18, 1998. Darryl Westerlund, representing Preferred Builders, responded by saying the original garage width of 32' could be down sized to 28', with all of the width reduction coming out of the large garage door opening. He added the depth of the garage and the body of the house would remain the same. II V • Mounds View planning Commission March 4, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 3 Mr. Westerlund told the Commission that many custom features are included in the house, including elliptical windows, brick, landscaping etc. The Developer feels the house, as proposed, will sell with its curb appeal. Commissioner Obert asked Director Jopke if the H. sing Re$ <. <A—Program had been discussed at the City Council Workshop sessi s ' t had``>•`.+" <- the preceding week. This question was raised because the Corn loner feel,l,9g`1" '$- miscommunication that has come about from th-y : .ers< >$. . cou g . eferred ` - have been avoided with some modifications ' to t ousine � eplacemen' "R :" Director Jopke told the Commissioners that the # y ' been discussed by the Council and a resolution would be forthcoming t11 `,,''r ' ' ess three changes to the existing policy. These changes were stated as ftp ows: y<%:<. 1. Under the existing policy a tena1 3$" , operty .} ;r i s e considered. The t revision would make it possib" ."'co'n e 34' ondit ,''on a case by case basis. 2. A suggested change to t:;:cumber ka b critert.. $.: ; .roperty would have to meet III a. <:.. to be considered for 0rogra 3. A change in the t ` of"tea ' at wou1 ,e eligible to be involved in thet tic program. .L ; ,:;_ G: V 5 :MIro .thing ?�.;: : sed in t'i''- ouncil planning session that would relate to the Pre . `„7.„,,,,.,41.4.4 er Inc . Comm'. o ::,<#r:ks ask?re-= applicant what their plan was going to be if the V . e ' eq ; .: $enied. r. Westerlun 0.`”i 3v, e Commission that Preferred Builders would be forced into -t r building a smalle 'ome with a two-car garage. He stated in the light of today's market demand for hoz : with three-cargarages that a smaller home with the two-car garage H;;'-`:;:, would be han to market. t n,< ; a; E oner Brasaemle stated he did not think the Developer has showed a hardship s'OPMMfrould fill that requirement of the Variance. He added, after reviewing the Spring Parade of Homes floor plans, that there is plan with a three-car garage that could be adapted to this piece of property that would not require a variance. • Mr. Westerlund told the Commission that Preferred Builders would gladly build a smaller home with a two-car garage if the City would cancel the current purchase agreement that 111/ Mounds View planning Commission March 4, 1998 III Regular Meeting Page 4 called out for the construction of a 1900 square-foot home with a three-car garage. An extended discussion was held between the Commission and the Develo•.- .s to how the existing floor plan could be modified or reoriented to fit the •..:y •e tat• ions. It was a consensus opinion that the City would be best served by • " $ g the property within the terms that were established by the EDA. . `$ e to 'a *:,, 0, ted as a home value of at least $145,000 and a square footage re , ement of: ,. Y4ri r... �• Dorgan told the Commission that the purchase . -e,men $'' een the *' '. Preferred Builders Inc., would have to be amen. �§ , `evelo ment s e .�.< 4 s were . changed. � Commissioner Obert suggested it is not good-;"annin:'<' `` .rce a large home on a small lot just to meet the EDA's developmen. s. Commissioner Brasaemle made th-. ` . rv. was inappropriate for the EDA to assume that the seven-foot varian :-ryould b-,-.t- •$. A, • ' 'development Commissioner Stevenson s„kw:, sted ta• t"flg the is r:�;- one more time. The Planning • Commission would ask th- : •, Icant t esubmit ,�;, plan on the basis of a four-foot variance. A second prop should i be co• 'ered with the garage facing Arden Avenue. , i ' .)��' S55�: cad.„H ..,4m,,,:4,1. ..fir.` ..�,,,..:• 'D 'n.C4,5u%f fir- 3;..yEner o .. , }. ;,-;ted he wou d not be in favor of granting any variance if all the'> ,;:.; the vara •.' not met. Commissl'g: <.enson`. :. • if Resolution No. 532-98 could be modified and re;„ en to i t i . - : .ur-foot variance. x. Mot'0`>:` econd: Petersa ,S.:::`''nson to approve the Variance request to include a four-foot setb:,3}c. instead of a sev-:”_Moot setback as was originally requested. The basis for a hardship bbe stated as a ” j standard size corner lot in a City redevelopment situation." _ommissiir Steven suggested including as one of the "Whereas" statements in the `_> # • the inclusion of the required 1900 square foot building size. Commissioner Obert asked if the motion was based on accepting the house plan as submitted. Chairperson Peterson told the Commission it was his understanding that the variance • was not stipulating a design,just the request for a specified setback. V ,. Mounds View planning Commission March 4, 1998 • Regular Meeting Page 5 Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brooks to table the current motion to a later point in the evening's meeting. This would give the staff the time it needs to modify the existing resolution. Ayes - 3 Nays - 3 (Obert, Johnston, ; asae Themotionfailed. S: x " '-mak Motion/Second: Obert/Stevenson to table the first moti q ", :. ;: o appro =:.. ' e fo � .anc ubmi request. This will give the Developer the opportunity te,' v. v X' ,. y tion PP tY - ,��, an. Appr.:.���� ��. will also give City staff the time it needs to rewrite t � . •�` the r �, � � �= The request wi3�."off.-• p for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting. T `:ti'`_ Ayes - 4 Nays - 2 asae`'' -. � � :.•n) :.. :.33.1 S5 The motion passed. ' '< 4 ;pasha h:- , 5. ;< • Planning Case No. 507-97y. 2625 Highway 10,7715-7761 Eas Ps'M0YA•. Applicant: TOLD Developments i Discussion -garding Wali,,- t•evelo : .� a g Rezo ,,,,,..:tit, " '\ P , Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Q nin < , K ,,,. • The app. a LD D-VE.,"t$ .'.R Company, was not present. Ass 'ate r 9;:'Y=. � ' $.-ssed• e Commission with the following report: tij: ,. 4The Ramsey Coup; F.: .. i c Engineer, Dan Soler, responded to Mr. Ericson's request for .1 the County to re, .y w Walgreen's Development Plan and related traffic study. Ramsey ` County made thollowing recommendations/comments: ;'` : _`$ A County supported the closure of Eastwood Road on to County Road I, ,g n " ng its closeness to Highway 10 and operational problems of the intersection. 2. Ramsey County agrees that access from Waigreen's onto County Road I will not negatively impact traffic. The proposed median will not have to be extended along County Road I past the eastbound left turn into and out of the site. 0 3. A Mn/DOT study identifies construction of a westbound right turn lane on County 1111 Mounds View planning Commission March 4, 1998 • Regular Meeting Page 6 Road I at Highway 10 as part of the geometric improvements to the Highway 10 Corridor. Ramsey County recommends that the construction of this right turn lane be part of Walgreen's Development, with construction of this right <:':`= lane being made as a condition of the City's approval of the develop f- t. 4. Ramsey County agrees that the traffic divert `'m Hr. : .y TH 118/610 return to pre-TH 118/610 , $ : etion levy will eventually � •:< s ter., 9 . �� � *Viz,/:' S , • 5. The developer will be required to obtain;:".4L',-ss pe s from Ra'it.v,torifr or access and construction on County Roa•' :_ _ -°,: Associate Ericson also presented traffic accident"-.0f .s follows: Over the past two years, from January 1, 1996,4o the a `tt there were 18 0a,�e» accidents at the corner of County Road I an.Ag. hway 102, ese accidents occurred from periods at 10.00 p.m. un '< ` . .> The rem.'i-f•'accidents were pedestrian related, cars hitting non-mit:" • .•.:_%.®n ;- 1 w;.erty • age and no loss of-life accidents. wf • Over a four-year period on s Roa. and Lon• a e Road there were five accidents. • All of these were people e " rout o $ ounds V Square. 6. St✓0?kr • •orts/Info :} f Items s (s<V.;><N.w?yr�..3�: hr,�:;'%• Reca$'p '1,698 Hi. .a t,Design Theme Workshop(verbal report) Direct g ::`;:04 $ the Co$ # :. stoners that Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., the City's co ant o . g w.:$ ay 1 I Design Theme has held two workshops. The initial �a> ;< $ he City would : 716'e included in the design theme. In the second wksho two different themes were brought forth: The Woodlands and P g Wetlands.3_,-: -, and the second one being The Main Street Theme. Signage to the City's . . en ›nature features of the City, landscaping, walk ways, and other characteristics , '. :" ff . were discussed as possible themes that would be included in the upcoming s. Jopke had several visual aids that were used to give the Commissioners an idea of how the Highway 10 Corridor's design was progressing. Director Jopke told the Commission the City Council would ultimately be the ones to adopt the concept. Once this process is accomplished the Planning Commission would be • involved in the process of working with the developers and contractors. IP Mounds View planning Commission March 4, 1998 • Regular Meeting Page 7 Associate Ericson briefly reviewed the City's effort to control nuisance vehicles. Currently there are 237 vehicles that have been identified and either ticketed or notices sent to have the vehicle owners take care of the problem vehicles. To date,`.f the noticed residents have responded to the City's communications tghem Bards to the vehicle. It ;,: UE_. '--- fcfi 7;5 ) ,- -.- ; -,• \ \ -- _ ---, . 1 • . ,........) - - - -.. ......c. - -:'7-(;..i 1 : \\i2\ T\C.,•47.1 /.4:) ?3 ND---+OJ?E c-N . . -. 1 c.," ,, 7.... in..„,,,-.., e.,-..., .,„ f _.....oia.1 „... 4 . ' ..,....114 1 ' 4 .1/4c: .___ C.;\r-_,-;,..L.i t-. _(3 - dclit.. .J(.., I _1 r-,. r :, _ ..,, _ , ,,,•,:, , ‹.....J _f,--_. : ,1 , . ,, -,(1,,,_bor.:,,,,..,ed , ),•,„ s..g,J, „, .,.,,,.., i 4. . . • •••_i . ;,...„ ,_,It. ,, ,,....... 1 .._) L II i-L. 1 fil t,-1- _ ....../ --„ _.. ..3 .......„ rci, , +... I - ,....---- L„,..... v -._,-,..., ---- • ,.....-i , -,,,A, ,-- Vs ,.(\ -I- ri •-•'-'-'1 - ---4, Se.. -2'' --Is..,„.. '''r: Ici•: r.,, I, --ii.v„., 1 1 4z.,,..... 4 4 ---.--- tt / 9'-C- S3 ;Co rc\ i .)\/ eft_ ---2 'klitlj Cj Cer\Z ki\f(Ili) We- acia1 - J (\ee_a - ,LID cir,.6...7,;„t Jr-cf, ,34, Ca.Rt r_icie leNi-v, -r:\3?rs.e. O.O_Lon --ng ,.., 0 -k -c-or ar\s6--her--'),(1/Nuo<-1.-_-,4-or-zP. 0Z--- -14\c'r\l• ty\( •. .;_ It( ji'Nk0 Oj fi) -47‘1-__•,e_ i,(.\..T.-'-irN. ,,C4J-171 Ov ; 1 ,N.(.... • "7.-., C.'I U.)4.....r\•-•C.)1 ,..,1\___ .....:. 'I 3L)..:74.- i c ,iuoftli- -7001 Ey.; -'‘ie_ ,........i I, 4 • \ ,), ( \ , g, -, —---------- -- --=_It-----.3fTh41/442i_ _ _.7.41.;Z_,.,„ ..-'14-,- ,a _ !,,A=•• \L),..77 '0a12____. __ 'M.-1k_ t! t ;"7- i . .c., , i. „ ,-,.„ --7- '-'-' C 1 ' i(---e-- - -.c..1,-P771.--0 let.1, 0•Re.C`3 i t,i. CkTrso, ....) --- .,,,, . r , , ,-., _ c_crs -,)i 50 , , fp,... i,_.. 0 ..„... .,"..e/ M,L, - tiod N oi iftd'VS/i V,..,, , i 1.,di ;‘,.01. 117\e ' ......, , • , Cg, . \i CLL) -- , \ CC."