HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-1997 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA
JULY 24, 1997
7:30 A.M.
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER 1'. 36 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL (Present = P, Absent = A)
Carlson V Schmidt
Goff ✓ Sjoberg
✓
Nelson ✓ Welsch
Bennett (Staff) McCarty (EDA Liaison
Quick (EDA Alternate Liaison)
3. APPROVE EDC MINUTES
May 22, 1997 (1-Ca
Motion
Second ?-)
Vote 'b YW
4. SPECIAL BUSINESS
No Special Business
5. EDC BUSINESS
A. Consideration of Tax Increment Request to Mounds View Family
Apartments for the Rehabilitation of Red Oak Apartments.
Action: Motion
Second
Vote
B. Discussion of Loan Program for Rehabilitation of Manufactured Homes
• C. Information Regarding Highway 10 Design Theme RFP
4.,.., cz -0-9-.- (,Q..e.A-A-a CO- `1.- (66-6 e-0-44-41-',"1 vl
•
0
c--0
ol, oimitm ,,,L, (444 1 1 (' jejf,ut,0 L .. :1 30,0 60 ,
3-1---yvc.
.,, e421,,,,_d
coui, 6t., to-v-e-e-- -.61--/-----&--
0 A,,,, .4-. ui it,t-t-t-4-. irocl'
rv-ecd- .
60,,,,
0&__(_4. t
oetku -, -
64-
.., , ,,,fou-11- �`a- �c,� Cis r� kCX� �C
0
.:;..-- -
,,,,A.„9„,,,,d÷ ,),.„___Q_,2k-,
it -- 40AAJobiaA-k- --Q .
_ A
ate- P'�. _ j._ ; I .
IN f„._!,,,,, 4..L.41:"---A-4.-0(Y-
cr • •EP
ki\S J,
i716 h � a
k 4,e, C--4:-
vi..
r .
{,iike_ Cibel . ------- -.L-
CCri— 4t)
D vu/ a cp
,i4 - d a,c -_ ) •
fwAr L n. ap►AA.,k-
0
6. Report of Commissioners, Staff and EDA Liaison
111111
(Si
7. ADJOURN P.M.
Attachments to Agenda:
• May 22, 1997 EDC Meeting Minutes
• Staff Reports for items 5.A., 5.B, 5.C. (See attachments as part of staff report 5.A and 5.C.)
• Planning Commission Minutes (April 2nd Special Meeting, April 2nd Regular Meeting, April 16th
Special Meeting)
Next Regular Meeting August 28, 1997
—1,s5 - �
'� C
ptr. a-� °''v`'°--6- -4
'1E6r 661) i unda
, k-6`11h eju'*),I&cukc .-Qi--- \DkiletAfr'cj"—N 4 -
• _ - --
,Adoavyyki.AA - -)Yi 0 ,1)1 -
SUS - - a,t- •
_ 0..,4„..9 +uv---
4?-(0 - a
- -?ew-vy\- 4 _i, cis_wuri
j_,_ 011;\.,_cLp s _aLsiA-eik'—
, __ u6 44,„tA.„._ GL,
rS tdtkeL..— \2+A--1-5-- A %.‘,4 ii.,<. ) ,u,o,cw-a&_
11)--- - . +-J/--- °144mju
- l'Avi`'
PlAilisuiff -1"- 10510(5.
III
.gyp Pr&
yti(34CL-U riSQJ Le})-&-° ok e'bu
civotkd- reci,z9
vuu2e9- < 44(C1- Jr • .4 _4_. 'aii,C1-kcj CA
t'D kJ a_ c}iYIOLLit • 1 '6:- >
x.52 c 1c / _
co-c •-{"ltrAA 11/140)\-0" p*A-666., Irldf 41'19-Al
n1A92 612)
Ak
-1,— i_4A,o = w
UJJ) , 1 V Veia r c�
DU
-e/v. ) 30
ms's Dc R- 04
0a4,000 ILLAJ, .
ujitiak‘ 11\-L *,? c;ktcotii
b•Y-U) 0700 ot If\ — CL_ _
4ltwv9,_ UCom-- rcLO-
. . A—
3 , 01 pciA) . -14/LP-4-
Let st,A.1-,4
ilk, tr1.c,t)-P et,„_ �-- _
Q
IQs I 0 4,' '
1 41;
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA
JULY 24, 1997
7:30 A.M.
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1• CALL TO ORDER P.M.
2. ROLL CALL (Present = P, Absent = A)
Carlson Schmidt
Goff Sjoberg
Nelson Welsch
) Bennett (Staff) McCarty (EDA Liaison
Quick (EDA Alternate Liaison)
3. APPROVE EDC MINUTES
May 22, 1997
• Action: Motion
Second
Vote
4. SPECIAL BUSINESS
No Special Business
5. EDC BUSINESS
A. Consideration of Tax Increment Request to Mounds View Family
Apartments for the Rehabilitation of Red Oak Apartments.
Action: Motion
Second
Vote
B. Discussion of Loan Program for Rehabilitation of Manufactured Homes
0 C. Information Regarding Highway 10 Design Theme RFP
1
1
1
4
6. Report of Commissioners, Staff and EDA Liaison
7. ADJOURN P.M. 1111
Attachments to Agenda:
• May 22, 1997 EDC Meeting Minutes
• Staff Reports for items 5.A., 5.B, 5.C. (See attachments as part of staff report 5.A and 5.C.)
• Planning Commission Minutes (April 2nd Special Meeting, April 2nd Regular Meeting, April 16th
Special Meeting)
Next Regular Meeting August 28, 1997
•
•
Minutes of the Economic Development Commission
City of Mounds View
• Ramsey County, Minnesota
Regular Meeting
May 22, 1997
City of Mounds View, Council Chambers
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 a.m. by Chairperson, Dan Nelson.
2. Roll Call:
Members Cindy Carlson, Rosemary Goff, Dan Nelson, Ron Schmidt and Brian Sjoberg were present.
Dir. of Economic Development Cathy Bennett was present. Member Delane Welsch, EDA Liaison
Duane McCarty and Alternate Liaison Gary Quick were absent
3. Approval Of Minutes:
Motion/Second: Carlson/Goff moved approval of Minutes from April 24, 1997.
• Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays
4. Special Business
No Special Business.
5. EDC BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Participation in the Business of the Year Luncheon
The New Brighton/Mounds View Area Chamber of Commerce Annual Business of the
Year Luncheon is on June 5, 1997 at the New Brighton Family Service Center. Bennett
encouraged EDC members to attend and support Mounds View Businesses. This year
Mounds View businesses are recipients of the Business of the Year and Community
Service Awards.
B. Status Report on Development/Redevelopment in Mounds View
Bennett gave a report on the status of development and redevelopment projects in
Mounds View.
Lease Vacancies:
1. Mounds View Business Park currently has 44,000 sq.ft. and 32,000
41110 sq.ft. of manufacturing/warehouse space available in Building H and A.
•
In addition, there is approximately 80,000 - 100,0000 sq. ft. in Building
G that is available for sublease from Onan Corporation.
2. Moundsview Square still is trying to lease the Bridgeman's Building and •
approximately 10,000 sq.ft. of retail space. The Sportsman's Guide will
be opening in August in the space where the grocery store used to be.
3. Silverview Plaza has approximately 9,500 sq.ft. of retail space available.
Building N: Bennett reported that she still continues to try and put together a
development agreement for the construction of Building N in the Mounds View
Business Park. Bennett will be collecting a deposit from Everest to continue
negotiations.
Theater Project: The Council approved the rezoning to a PUD of the O'Neil
Property for the development of a 16-screen movie theater and 3 office
buildings. In addition, the general concept plan and amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan was approved. Staff will be working in partnership with
the developer to achieve a local circulator road through the project and a
signalized intersection.
Jones/Winnieki Property: The applicants for the Jones/Winnieki property are
working on design elements and traffic study to be considered prior to the final
vote for a PUD rezoning. The concept plan and amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan were approved. It is anticipated that this project will
request tax increment assistance but no application has been received.
Silver Lake Commons Apartment Project: MSP Real Estate held a neighborhood
meeting to discuss the project. Neighbors do not want access onto Eastwood. •
The developers are modifying their plan to address some of the concerns and are
expected to be submitting an application within the next week.
Mounds View Community Center: Remodeling of the existing building will
begin June 5th. Phase I will include the remodeling of space for the Children's
Home Society DayCare which is expected to move in August 15, 1997. Phase II
is still yet to be determined.
C. Update on the U of M Metropolitan Livable Communities Design Center Course.
Bennett presented a concept for a local circulator road (ring road) that was a result of the
Design Center Course with the U of M. The Ring Road concept creates a boulevard
through the O'Neil Property, through City Hall Property, Moundsview Square and
meeting with Mounds View Drive. Since the link through the O'Neil Property is
critical to the concept, staff will be working with the developers to achieve this link.
When a road alignment is achieved through the O'Neil Property, discussion of design,
and the remaining ring road alignment will come back to the EDC for review and
comment.
D. Mounds View Flood Relief Golf Tournament
This item was removed from the agenda as the idea was canceled.
•
E. EDC Member Vacancy
Bennett reported that Bev Tarhark is resigning from the commission as she is not able to
• commit the time required. Suggestions were given for possible candidates to fill the vacancy.
6. Reports From Chair, Commissioners and Staff:
No Reports
7. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Commission, this meeting of the Economic Development
Commission adjourned at 8:34 a.m.
Respectfully Submitt-d,
/ I
40
Director
o omic Development
III
S
• Staff Memo
To: Economic Development Commission Members
From: Cathy Bennett, Director of Economic Development
Date: July 17, 1997
Subject: Consideration of Tax Increment Request to Mounds View Family
(5.A) Apartments (The Partnership) for the Rehabilitation of Red Oak
Apartments (Silver Lake Commons)
Background:
Silver Lake Commons (SLC) was introduced to the EDC at the April 24, 1997 meeting and
a recommendation was made in support of the concept but further evaluation was
needed to give a sound recommendation regarding the request for tax increment
assistance.
The proposal has evolved over the past few months but the concept is relatively the same.
II) The Partnership held two neighborhood meetings to discuss SLC and changes have been
made to accommodate some of the resident concerns. SLC includes the significant
rehabilitation of Red Oak Apartments which is located at 2665 Highway 10 and the new
construction of 16 rental townhomes. The new townhomes will be located on the three
vacant parcels to the east of the existing apartments.
The corner parcel is currently owned by the EDA. This lot was purchased for
redevelopment purposes in 1995 for $125,000. The purchase price was based on
appraisals that came in at $140,000 and $150,000. The appraisals were based on the
current structure of the home as a triplex and the current zoning of the property as R-3.
The triplex was demolished at the expense of the EDA for $6,000. It was the initial
intention of the EDA to purchase the lot and rezone the parcels for a commercial use. In
an effort to identify a user for these lots, the EDC suggested that a Request for
Information be prepared and distributed to developers for suggestions on uses for the
property. The request was distributed to over 25 local developers in December of 1995.
There was no interest in a commercial use for the parcels generated by the request. There
was one request for possible senior townhomes and a funeral home and animal hospital
were possibly interested. In an effort to reevaluate this section of Highway 10 and the
issues involved with the properties located on both sides of the highway, the EDA
approved a study which was completed by SRF Consulting in early 1997. As a result of
the study it was determined that the best possible use for the parcels was multi-family
and rehabilitation of the existing apartments . One of the key issues that make the
parcels difficult for a commercial use is the limited, if not impossible, access off Highway
• 10 and limited access off Eastwood. Almost every commercial business needs easy
access to be successful.
The Current Proposal: •
The current proposal from The Partnership addresses the existing condition with the Red
Oak Apartment and creates more of a community by incorporating the new townhomes
with a large play area, community room, on-site management office and increased
landscaping. The rendering from MSP shows a completely new look for the Red Oak
Apartments that will match the architectural style of the new units. There is one access
point off Highway 10 for the entire project and an emergency fire exit onto Eastwood.
The existing units are all 1 and 2 bedrooms and the new units will be 3 and 4 bedroom.
All of the units are for people who earn less than 40% of the median income which is
categorized as affordable housing. It is estimated that the current tenants in the Red Oak
Apartments would qualify under these income limits, therefore the existing apartments
can currently be considered affordable. The rent is expected to increase as a result SLC
but the rents proposed will still meet the guidelines for affordable housing. Because the
rents are increasing, there is concern that some of the existing tenants will be displaced.
Therefore, it is very important that an adequate amount of money be dedicated to
relocation in the budget. I will review this issue further under the financing summary. An
objectives of the development is to provide an area for children to play. Currently,
children play in front of the apartments close to Highway 10. The current proposal
reduces the number of units allowed per acre to provide a large play area along
Eastwood. In addition there was concern that adding more multifamily units in Mounds
View would be a strain on the School District. Jeff Huggett met with the Superintendent410
of Mounds View Schools about SLC and their comments are outlined in the attached
letter.
SLC have gone through development review and approved by the Planning Commission
at the July 16, 1997 meeting. I have attached copies of the staff report and minutes for
your information. Council will vote on the development review at the July 28th meeting.
The Financing:
I have attached a revised budget for SLC with a detailed breakdown of the sources and
uses which were requested to evaluate the financial package. SLC is proposing a
complicated layering of financing from Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Ramsey
County, Minneapolis Public Housing Agency and the City of Mounds View. Because there
are several elements of public financing in this proposal, the EDA's financial interest
should be contingent upon The Partnership's approvals from these other agencies. The
Developers are working closely with each public entity but questions still remain
regarding the level of security each agency will require and final approvals are still
uncertain. The following is a brief summary of each source of public funds.
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA):
$250,000 in tax credits approved by MHFA in March for 17 years.
•
Ramsey County Home Funds:
• $200,000 at 4.5% interest for 30 years. Balloon when tax credits expire. The County
Board approved the setting aside of these funds for a project in Mounds View in May.
Judy Karon and Mary Lou Eagan from the County are working with MSP Real Estate to
work out the legal documentation and debt repayment assurances. Judy Karon is
uncertain at this point of the status based upon the MSP's reluctance to be able to
comply with the loan requirements.
MHFA Deferred Loan:
$290,000 at 0% interest for 30 years. Application is due in August and will be considered
for approval in October. Staff indicates this is a type of proposal that is favorable to fund
and they would support. We will request a copy of the application to assure that the
budget is consistent.
Holman Grant:
$978,000 structured as a grant or non-recourse loan at 0% interest. Preliminary
approvals given. Waiting for Metropolitan Council to vote regarding holding the Annual
Contribution Contract which is required to be administered by a public entity. Ramsey
County will not participate in this and the City is not qualified. Therefore, it is critical that
Met Council support this. The Met Council Community Development Council will vote on
this issue July 25th and the full board will vote August 6th. This is a key component of
the project moving forward. The requirement is that 10 units (5 rehab, 5 new) must be
set aside for people who are on the Minneapolis Public Housing waiting list. They will
• allow 3 of the 10 units to come from existing Mounds View residents receiving subsidies.
The screening process to be eligible under the Holman Decree is very strict, similar to
Habitat for Humanity. These are people who struggle financially but are interested in
providing a better life for their family. The EDC may want to consider recommending
that a letter be sent to Met Council urging the Board to hold the Annual Contribution
Contract.
Sale of EDA Land:
The Partnership is proposing to purchase the property from the EDA for $35,000 which is
approximately $1.35 per sq. ft. This is the price that they are purchasing the vacant land
between the Red Oak Apartments and EDA owned land. The Partnership has also had an
appraisal done on the land and will be able to share this with the EDC at the meeting.
Per State Law, the EDA must hold a public hearing on the sale of land. The public hearing
is scheduled for July 28th. A notice was published and is attached for your review. The
sale would be contingent upon all aspects of the financing and development review being
approved. If the EDA is not prepared to act on the sale at this meeting, the public
hearing can be continued until a later meeting. If the sale occurs, these funds are no
longer subject to tax increment requirements.
Tax Increment Financing Request:
The Partnership is requesting a $230,000 deferred 1% interest loan for 30 years from
existing Tax Increment Funds. Dave Maroney, TIF Consultant with Community Partners,
0 has attached a letter summarizing his recommendations and considerations for this
request. Although the amount of funds requested are relatively small compared to the
total project cost of $5 million, the EDA should consider their financial interest and legal
responsibilities tied to financing a development of this magnitude. Specifically, the •
relocation budget should be backed by a more detailed displacement plan to assure that
enough funds are being set aside. We have not received a complete assessment of the
current status of the tenants as of this date to determine how many people may be
displaced or not able to afford the increase in rents. If the budget is short for relocation,
then the tenants could request and possibly require the City to make up the difference
since we are partially funding the rehabilitation. Another questions we may want to
address is security on repayment of the loan and if this is important or not. Dave
Maroney will be at the meeting to address any questions you may have and go over his
recommendation to address these issues. The use of funds is seen as very acceptable
under the goals for use of tax increment. Our Tax Increment Attorney, Jim O'Meara is
preparing a draft development assistance agreement. We can incorporate terms into the
agreement prior to its final draft.
Management:
One of the main concerns for successful apartment living is quality, effective
management. The Partnership has contracted with Danzeisen Properties to provide
property management for SLC. President Lori Danzeisen has years of experience turning
around distressed properties throughout Minnesota. As an example, she was involved
with the management and turn around of a problem complex in St. Paul called Pine Tree
Park Apartments. Her work on with this property gained her a letter of commendation
from then Mayor Scheibel. The Danzeisen management style focuses on strict tenant •
screening and enforcement of management rules as well as providing a feeling of
community within the complex. Lori likes to get residents involved in activities within the
complex and working with the neighborhood to address concerns from previous
management. I contacted several people who have worked with Lori and all the reports
were excellent. I will provide a summary of comments at the meeting. In addition, Lori
will be present to provide insight into her management philosophy.
Conclusion:
This is a ton of information to digest but I wanted to provide you with enough
information prior to the meeting to enable you to make a sound recommendation
regarding the tax increment request even though the recommendation may be a
conditional commitment You should consideration what the goals for the City are
regarding this development. Some of the goals are to increase the tax base, reduce
blight, provide jobs, improve the aesthetics of the corridor and reduce the effects of
uncontrolled social issues that tend to put a large burden on the public sector. Aside
from the financial evaluation these goals need to be considered.
Attachments to Staff Report 5.A.: site plan, School District Letter, Planning Commission
Staff Reports, Letters from MSP Real Estate (June 9th & 25th), Public Notice, Comments
from TIF Consultant Dave Maroney dated July 18th and Property Management
Information. •
I-
.
OLk.k.
40.4vii
'l':;.'',:'',;,,''—t';',k.•.:.... ys:,
_. •-- 4:-. 4, P . .
•
. , ...,,,,. '.•') ,
* 1
•..... is,. - 0 x,
c.ktS-
.
, 1 ; s .::' ",•, . 1-4,4,&A....4.,_.-:,..-
-• -'''' 14 NEW GARAGES ... 1
‘ A co •.:t ,..., . ,..1.
0::*71,'
• '`i....,.'. . - '''.1 ''''-. ,.:: I
i•.:•:`'.1":,;,-: N-;,•,, . 44,,:i.
,.,z .,.. 1
'',.',1'4,•:*1.% !: '. '. ''',. SI 8 a..., :3:.\
. '..- ..iir. ‘`. '.*'..7:T'`,:•I'
..a,
-i" •‘-'+' — .,,N-..,-- .::: - ,1',T i- &IT ,
-1 4,,....'V.,- ".-.4- - -:"3.' .•=s's'''' ".. \ '
, ....a.
''''\4:' '*i Nxi:. -tlti • - _
,..::,.:•-.---•'•-•-•,,.' i : ,. . -,----. .
4 ,,_•,:,,,,,.. . ,
, .... , -.• -
-• I --1, ,e. -.....\
.. .. ,
' -. . • -< •'t---‘...,i ... •-kv..'t-
..-A.„
I''. :•-• v... ..-*: }..: ....„-. -:!s- •-.
..ket
14
‘......4,- 46,2,....,, . . .
---4 - ---.,-- - ' ' ` ,k;,
--v-
- MIX-..!"-,. i„„:4:,..,--7-'s,>.!Tv-'. -F•77,- -. .
..;.',..','
1
,,i,,I ;...,-,. TING _17,!,....1N,11"91.4,91tip.-:•••,.•. .,,,.) a.
C „,,,,,,,,... : .'.1 Z.!. , •,.
4 %. " 'rii 74,4.
• i's,4z7,;,...,,,.
• —- ••
,..
-4!. ,•
. •-.,' ',..,.,7.4",.'',- -.s•-`-'‘,...:.;-. .,`);...„..--..:--%';._ :•.:C.,-.'*;'4,-- 7.'..f-1 ---...---- 1 0, . .
. ,
cf-)
ink Ass-- • - • I
..._•• - __,,, 1 -,'4, 'N."--- ., I.''%., ...'. ' -.-. -•-..,.
...
P 1
. . .
G')' ' M i i '.'./r.:1-' •
0
1 I r`lr<3
. ....,-
.
,...,
......,... .......
.7-re s
-3.,..,' . •„',-0 I.-'• . '. 1114 ... ..,. ...-•
-‹ 1 ef.---, -' • :.-* r,---r r:---- 7 v <,, '''''s
I -,•, - . sk,',..!,, :, ..•., tii; c.•. si,„:-......,,, ..'ft?I .--•
t 1'2,.„,.',,',.;,„ ' -‘ ,''''%:. t ""-,,. .-!.i:'•'''''- •,;•74,-,,,,„_'''''','-',.. „.-ie.,', I'-,..'!:'11 r l'ili'' -.?
..--
....,. ..,.. ,. •"4 V'',--1.1.1-'' ,"*. ,--,-;-,''‘,, 7''''7
4,. ki''''' INN 9 M3N -..„••••:„••',.7.74,;-' ,, _. •_..,A\z„.... ,.f.:. ...T., .6- .):,.,,,, \:,,•:-... 4".
0 ,
' R i••• :- ;7,- ;• .
• „,. -
M .." ', ..,./4" . ,. ,!,. -..,,r, .:.:I• I :- ',,--••••-i'INV,...0,-
.,,, •• -_- ••••` ,.. -,••.:-- ;••••?• • ON/0 ins '. ' , '. •'...•--. '• '..,,,N.,
•• ' '' li frf.9 m • ., -• .,`' •,-- '' • ••
r ;AO 4„--`:: :,•,„ 4,,-4,YeAFra,n%„- '..T.Ii',.,2*,;.SN'As,-...; " . -'', --- .--,,F4,,,..› ,tX.-.
..,e'vi....-.N.-.N2'... ,,,v-„,..-' '.--...),L:. ......v - -.---.:.---"\\: zi--,•-,•• - , . - 4 111: '
k, ,. . ,7,0VNV..•-,„- •-.---y‘.Ar,,.:,,-,.:-.._'N,, i.4.`M,!4.--::;,:'.,..,',-,-.'. ,- •. 4.‘,/'
P.'
:.:-i'.",•;...7*:•°:'...! , 0-,,,.. • , ,,..-_-.1„,-.,,,., - ,....
or „.,, -,-. •,..s..1 7 ..:•• 4.• : .
Ni• '''''',:'- .4::*--, .•• :i'' '''', '. .. wre4.. .
'''., 7.- - ' •-Av,..
W-- lalk
k'141
III •r s
I' -.-.•4:..-_-..-, ,, „ .
',....•C - ' ,, 4..1. ,..0"
1 i5....t.:. -.,a ..L ..-' sa .
I I
L
\ '1
8 .. . .
. ... ,
,i, , "-.--.-c- .- k:.,-: .1..,e•-:/
.. . .. . .. .
1-;, . .- •
, .. . . ..
z .
1 I i;il
cri -0
9 ;
- IV
r
v)
7-15-1997 9:22PM FROM MSP REAL ESTATE. INC. 612 336 4565 P. 2
ir4 Independent School District No. 621
e4 Mounds View Public Schools
• 2959 North Hemline Avenue•St. Paul, Minnesota •55113• Phone (612) 639-6109
Ray A.Lucas, Director of Technology, Information and Planning
July 10, 1997
Jeff Huggett
MSP Real Estate_ ...
311 5th Avenue North
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Dear Mr. Huggett: .
This letter is to confirm that in our discussions of your proposed development in Mounds View, we
'4cussed the impact of the estimated 30 additional school age children that are projected to enter
ounds View School System. The purpose of this letter is to assure you that adequate space
be available at one of our elementary schools.
Sincerely,
QA4t. 4-44-1
Ray. Lucas
Director of Technology, Information and Planning
•
Serving the communities of Arden Hills•Mounds View•New Brighton•North Oaks•Roseville•Shoreview•Vadnais Heights
Equal Opportunity for Education and Employment
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Meeting Date: June 1997
411
Staff Report by:
Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
Planning Case No.: 487-97
Request: Development Review ---
Petitioner: MSP Real Estate, Inc.
Location: 2625 -2665 Highway 10
PIN Nos. 06-30-23-44-0051, 06-30-23 11 0052
06-30-23-43-0012, 06-30-23-43-0013
Zoning/Land Use: R-4,High Density Residential
R-3, Medium Density Residential
Applicable Regulations: Section 1006.06, Development controls
Section 1104.01. General zoning provisions --yard requirements
Section 1104.02, Area and building size regulations
Attachments: Planning Application
• Zoning Map
Site Plans (Separate Attachment)
Revised Landscape Plan(Separate Attachment)
Letter from Applicant
Background:
The applicant, MSP Real Estate, Inc., has requested approval of a development review for the
Silver Lake Commons development at 2625 -2665 Highway 10. A total of 16 new two-level
rental townhomes will be created on the now vacant properties just south of the existing Red Oak
Apartments, which will be completely rehabilitated as a part of this project. New hipped-style
roofs and new siding will be added to the apartment buildings to match the design of the proposed
townhomes. With the existing 40 apartment units, this project will be comprised of 56 dwellings
on 3.78 acres for a density of 15.0 dwellings per �ve Each
garages toof the ureplace the existing
e units will have an
attached single-stall garage and the apartments
garages. This project does not require a rezoning. Multi-family dwelling structures containing six
• or fewer dwelling units are an allowed use in the R-3, Medium Density Residential District.
The development plan prepared by the applicant includes both the existing Red Oak Apartments
and the new townhomes because changes are being made to the layout of the Red Oak
Apartments as part of this proposal. The Planning Commission may be aware that there has been
0 some discussion with City Council on how this project will be financed and whether the City is
interested in selling the land at the corner of Eastwood and Highway 10 to become a part of this
Project. These issues are being addressed outside of the development review process. Staff has
reviewed this proposal from the standpoint of whether it meets development requirements.
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
Planning Case No. 487-97
June 18, 1997
Paget
411
Staff has scheduled this project for two meetings, with discussion on June 18 and and a decision
on July 2nd or 16th, depending on the number of issues which need to be resolved prior to this
case being ready for Planning Commission action.
•
Analysis:
Dimensional Requirements:
Required Proposed: Met?
Building Setbacks:
Front (Highway 10): 30 feet 48 feet Yes
Front (Eastwood): 30 feet 30 feet Yes
Rear: 30 feet 48 feet Yes
Parking Lot Setbacks: 5 feet 5 feet Yes
Minimum lot width: 100 feet 390 feet Yes
Minimum lot area:
(2,500 square feet per D. U.):
Existing Red Oak
Silver Lake Commons (New) 40,000 sq.ft. 94,090 sq.ft. Yes
Building height: 45 feet 30 feet Yes
M nimum floor area per D.U.:
4110
Three bedroom units: 870 sq.ft. 1,320 sq.ft. Yes
Four bedroom units: 920 sq.ft. 1,620 sq.ft. Yes
Parking requirements:
Uncovered: (1.5 per unit) 84 spaces 68 spaces No*
Covered: (1.0 per unit) 56 spaces 57 spaces Yes
*With proof of parking,a total of 86 spaces can be provided.
Drainage and Ponding:
The drainage proposal is to create a detention pond at the southeast end of the site, which then
would feed water to the Highway 10 ditch. The ditch follows north at this point, and water then
goes through a culvert under Highway 10 to the D.W. Jones property and wetland. The drainage
diagram and the preliminary stormwater summary analysis was forwarded to Rocky Keehn at SEH,
Inc., the City's engineer. Mr. Keehn's response addresses a number of concerns pertaining to
drainage and grading. (Refer to the attached report from Rocky Keehn.) With regards to the
drainage, Mr. Keehn indicated that because of the positioning of the buildings, runoff from the
property north of the site is appears to be blocked, which could cause flooding. The site also
receives runoff from Eastwood Road via a bituminous swale that cuts into the property. The site
plan shows the detention pond over the swale which would necessitate a change in the existing
drainage from Eastwood Road. While a number of alternatives can be employed to deal with this,
the applicants will need to coordinate with the City's Public Works Department to resolve the
problem. •
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
Planning Case No. 487-97
June 18, 1997 •
Page 3 •
•
The grading of the site also received comments, specifically the lack of slopes for the ditch, parking
lot and pipes. The parking lot is relatively flat which provides for poor drainage. Problems such as
standing water and ice patches in the winter may result from the flat slope. In addition, the site plan
does not show any contours for the pond proposed at the southeast corner of the development.
Given its location near pedestrian traffic and within a residential development, safety is a top
priority. Mr. Keehn suggests that at a minimum, a 10:1 slope should be used with a water depth of
no more than four feet. Mr. Keehn's final comment concerned the summary-nature of the
hydrologic calculations. All of the drainage calculations and input data used to determine
elevations and pond size will.need to be provided.
There has been some discussion with the applicant about piping the water to the wetland on the
D.W. Jones property and creating a detention pond (for water quality purposes) on that property in
cooperation with the property owner. The applicant is seeking a discussion with Dale Jones, the
property owner, about this idea. Mr. Keehn recommended this approach because he felt it would
be better if the detention pond were off the site, given it is being developed with multiple family
housing.
Staff is proposing that these drainage issues be addressed between this meeting of Planning
Commission and your next meeting.
. Access:
Access to the site will be accomplished with a single entryway south of the existing Red Oak
Apartments entryway. The drive access will be in between the apartments and the townhome units.
The existing driveway servicing Red Oak Apartments will be removed. The driveway is shown at a
24-foot width. Comments received back from the Fire Marshal raised two issues, one of which
concerned the access. The Fire Marshal would prefer a 28-foot wide access road which would
allow for better access to emergency vehicles. The applicant will need to adjust the site plan to
accommodate any necessary changes made to the access roads. The Fire Marshal's other concern
regarded the provision of a fire hydrant on the property.
Landscape Plan:
The 11" x 17" plans submitted by the applicant include a landscape plan which has been forwarded
to the Rick Wriskey, Mounds View's City Forester. In addition, the applicant provided on Friday,
June 13, a revised landscaping plan(24" x 36") which changed some of the plant materials. The
original landscape plan was referred to the City Forester for review. We have not had an
opportunity to refer the later plan, but will after the Planning Commission meeting on June 18.
The applicant has indicated a desire to retain significant trees on the site where possible.
Staff received the following comments from the City Forester on the proposed landscape plan:
• Trees proposed to be preserved must be fenced during construction. Care must be taken to
protect the area surrounding each tree equal to its dripline. No heavy machinery or
• equipment shall enter within these areas so as to protect fragile root systems.
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
Planning Case No. 487-97
June 18, 1997
Page 4 •
• If flowering crabapple trees are to be used, the species should not be either sparkler or
radiant which are susceptible to disease. (The proposed species on the revised plan is
Spring Snow Crabapple.)
• Pin oaks should be changed to red oak or bicolor oak.
• Regal elm(on revised plan) should be changed to Hackberry.
Staff has a number of concerns with the plantings proposed on the site, which are described below.
We will have a diagram at the meeting to illustrate how we feel the plan needs to be revised.
• Arborvitae edge along Highway 10 was intended to screen the view of the parking lot from
the highway, but it is not very well anchored along the frontage. (Its position appears to be
random and not well-related to the building frontage.) Staff suggests that a grove of trees
be planted between the two existing apartment buildings on either side of the walkway to
get the same effect. Plantings of spruce and crabapple should then be planted on either end
of the Highway 10 frontage and on either side of the driveway, to create"brackets" for that
frontage and identity for the project.
• The lilacs along the south half of the Highway 10 frontage were intended as screening, but
staff is concerned that they will grow so high, they will apppear to create a walled -
"compound" look to the development. We would suggest lower growing, dense shrubs that
would provide an edge, keep children off the highway, but also beautify the site. The two
blue spruce in the center would be moved, and additional trees added in groupings at either
end of the frontage. We will be asking the City Forester for some suggestions on types of
• shrubs which will do well in this confined space.
• There needs to be some type of fencing along the Highway 10 edge where it abuts the
existing apartment buildings. We have been talking with the applicant about the overall
Highway 10 design theme, and that we expect it to include a bike path and fencing. We
have also talked with MnDOT about entering into a license agreement to allow use of some
of the highway right-of-way. They appear receptive. We are trying to avoid the situation
where we require fencing from the applicant and then later have the City install fencing as
part of the Highway 10 design theme. Staff continues to be concerned, however, that
fencing is needed along this stretch because of the number of children in the existing
apartments and the frequent occasions when children are observed playing in the front lawn
area with no separation from Highway 10.
• The wood fence along the back property line needs to be extended further toward
Eastwood to screen the four parking spaces next to the 4-unit building.
• The arborvitae edge along the chain link fence needs to be anchored on either end with
crabapple trees, or a combination of crabapple and spruce. The City Forester has said that
the species proposed is suitable for creating a hedge effect and for providing screening. •
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
Planning Case No. 487-97
June 18, 1997
40 Page 5
• The chain link fence needs to be residential height (and not schoolyard height) to avoid
creating a"compound" effect. ,
Parking:
Each of the new townhouse-styled multi-family units will have an attached garage and uncovered
parking space. In addition, 10 additional uncovered parking spaces will be provided, two more
than what is required. At present, as far as we know, there are 78 parking spaces on the Red Oak
apartment property, with 44 in surface parking and 34 in the garages. The applicant proposes to
replace the existing covered garages for the apartment buildings with 41 new covered garages. The
site plan shows only 39 uncovered parking spaces for the existing apartments for a total of 80
spaces. There is room for an additional 18 spots if necessary. Using the extra parking provided in
the new housing area, enough parking overall can be provided to satisfy the parking requirements
set forth in Section 1121.13 of the Zoning Code for this development. The overall number of
covered garages proposed for this development meets the minimum required. A variance in
parking requirements will need to be approved to allow use of proof of parking. This variance
would be prepared for your consideration when this project is ready for decision by the Planning
Commission.
Utilities and Easements;Platting:
0 There are water and sewer lines in both Eastwood Road and Highway 10, so utilities are available
to the site. The applicant will need to replat the site to remove the lot lines since development will
be crossing those lines. The needs for easements for water, sewer and drainage for the
development would be addressed at that time. There is a St Paul Waterworks easement which cuts
across the corner of the property at Highway 10 and Eastwood Road. Staff needs to refer this
project to them for comment, and will do so before your next meeting.
Conclusions:
At this stage, staff is favorable toward this project with some modifications to the landscaping
plan, submittal of a satisfactory drainage plan, and pending comments from St. Paul Waterworks.
Both the zoning and the Towle Report (done as part of the Area 9-Highway 10 Study) anticipate
the use of this property for multiple family housing. The proposal meets the development
requirements of the City's Zoning Code. Separate from this process, Cathy Bennett, Economic
Development Director, will be working with the applicant to bring forward their proposal for
purchase of the City land and for TIF financing to the Economic Development Authority.
cc: Cathy Bennett
NADATACSERSTAMSLSHAREIDEVCASEVV-971COMMONS.RPT
IP
art Cie
egitE.0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
►� 2401 Highway 10, Mounds Yew M1V 55112
Par_ ,,mott"P' 612-784-3055
612-784-3462-FAX
Please Type or Print Information-Complete Both Sides of This Form
Applicant Information
Name otAppiicant MSP Real Fs-ha t•p. rnr-_ Telephone 337-5114.
. Address 311 5th Avenue North Fax 336-4565
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Interest in Property(check appropriate box)
a Owner of Property
G Contact for Deed Owner
a Lessee;Operator,Manager
X Agreement to Purchase
c Other(explain)
Applicants must provide evidence of interest in property at the time of application,and if you are not the owner of the
property,you must provide a letter of permission from the owner giving consent to the Sling of this application. The
property owner must sign this application for it to be accepted.
petty Description/Proposal
or General Location Highway 10/County Road I
Legal Description See Attached
Property Identification 4(PM'4) See Attached
4 of Ames 3
Current Zoning R-4, R-3
Present Use Type ozAapfication
I Undeveloped/Vacant CComprehensive Fan Amrrtrfrrrrnr S00
e Single Family Dwelling a Re_.g 5200/ate=in=00 max SI OCO
G Duaiev two Family Dwelling a Major Subdivision 5250;-SZ5O deposit'
M Multi-samily Dwefi„g a Wm=Subdivision 5150
G Busiaess/C.ot iai Establ i r G Fanned Unit Development(PUD) 5;50
a Industrial Establishment a PUD Ara dmrnr 5150
a Other(explain) •c Conditional Use Pe-mit R-1,R-2 575;all at=S200
a Variance R-1,R-2 S75;all oth,cs 5200
G Code Appeal S75
CC De op Review/Site Plan 5100/ac;min 5100 max S.0
xz Wetland Alteration Plait S50+deposit"
a Wetland Bu1Ter Pemzit 7
a Ftoodpiaia Permit 5200
e Otho
•
'ser Municipal Code for explanation of deposits
Please complete the reverse side of this application.
City of Mounds View,MN •
Development Application Page 2
Property CIassificadon c Abstract a Torr •
Desciptioa of Proposal See Attached
BY MY(OUR)SIGNATURE ON THIS APPLICATION,112EBY DECLARE THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY
ICIOWLEDGE,THE INFORMATION PROVID IS • ' A CURATE.
Signature of Applicant l� //
Name of Applicant(typed/printed) MSP Real Estate, Inc.
Signature ofProperty Owner
Name of Property Owner(typedfprinted) r •
•
FOR OFFICr USE ONLY
Date of Submittal
Date of Acceptance Assigned to:
Fanning Case No. 60-day Limit 120-day limit
Fees Paid: Account 4 CYecic#
Application
?ark Dedication:
Deposits:
t2ic
Total:
C'AFFI=W 3411MVPDCCSWDMIZAFORIMDEVAPP FOR 1197
sHERWOO 0
m 0 c ( 0
n N 03 `. a 1111 `r 8099 J 0 into 8088
1` N h.'. 8080 ce 8081 N N 8088 8075 �o I CM CV l) N 8085 04 N
CZ
8085 8066 8071 N 8068 8071 8072 8072 Q -
I. 8070 8071 8071 8060 -
8075 8060 80b9 8050 8055 3060 8065 • 8050 •
' ' 8045 8040 8042 8045 I_ 8052 8051 804-4 8045 8046 -
8039 8032 8033 I 8040 8035 8032 8031 8038
8025 8028 Y Y ..
8015 Q 8025 8018 8022 8019 8030
3 O 8011 8000 8021
32 8005 8016 8009 8006 8000 8001 8010
is 7985 8004 7981 7990 D 7981 I 7990 a 7989 7996 7993 7990
cc ct
I" 7975 1 7970 7979 I 7980 7969 7980 7979 7980 n 7985 7970
;' 7965 7960 7959 7970 7965 7960 7961 7964
C 7949 7954 7859 7966 7969 • 7950 7951 7954
•
'' 7955 7956 7946 7927 7940H I LLVI EW • "
7940 7945
33 7950 7917 i
7935 ( 7930 PARK
z 7930 2 �, �,- 7901
c^V N n 7900 7901-Nii 7900 N N N 7900 7901 N N 7900 a PF -
HILLV1EW ROAD
43
,,,,,,era 7891N N 0 788 7895 N N) 7890 7885 N 7864
}
7876 Z MIIINEX2
7867 7870 7869
7858
H-2 ZREM= 7851 7860 7865 7852
wl'
��� ,7870 (i) •
7863MEM 7841 7850 7855 7846
ti . �a gyp 7830 o 7840 7835 7840
•
I. 40110,, �'—30?� IIIZER 7815 7790 G 7815 i 7800
ry EER u, O 7805 I 7780
,��> > 7809 7770 3 7801 T/s0
2-2 7800 7801 w 7751 7750
O' LU
...... 0;1111 ti . 7767 7760 g 7741 7740
C '�V7761 7750 7731 I 7730
1• 7801liklih ' A 1\ Neraiet
775511512! 7730 7721 I 7720
7745 7710 7711
%.,.�! 7711 � 7700
N N
......::::.:...•:::::::::.....•:::::::::::::::::::::::=7::::::::::::. R-2
-- NJ Qf 2l) 12—Qf n47
R� PUD 41 in til 1C3 VI in in tO til
- Y. _ ��'- �� ����� 2553
Q 1H-,3 CVCVNN m CMCVCVNN 2551
N N in 2549 0
w; N 2547
' @-3 6'P B_4 254-5
2541
0 g ti 2539
N 2537
SILVER VIEW i ��•
11111 Zoning Map Case No. 487-97
1 2625 - 2665 Highway 10N ‘.
Applicant: MSP Real Estate, Inc.
%�i ii♦
BKPV 4111
June 5, 1997
Ms. Pam Sheldon
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View,MN 55112 •
Dear Pam,
•
Enclosed are 12 copies of revised and additional plans for MSP's Silver Lake Commons project.
Aremte_-jre Survey(with 2 full sized copies)
Site Plan
Interior Ce=ran Landscape Plan
Drainage Plan with calculations
Three bedroom floor plan
cn dine?!np Four bedroom floor plan
The Landscape Plan shows the existing trees that we feel can be saved—these include a grouping
of cottonwoods and elm at the site entry and many of the oak and pine trees in the play area. We + +
have shown overstory,ornamental and screen plantings on the plan,and have shown areas to be
sodded around the buildings and the larger play area to be seeded. We will include additional
foundation plantings around the buildings in the final Iandscape plan to be submitted for
permitting.
The Drainage Plan shows the existing drainage pattern on the existing site will be maintained—the
site slopes from north to south with part of the flow being diverted west of the 23 unit building
and part of it draining at the existing driveway. All existing water drains directly into the ditch in
Highway 10. We are not significantly changing the pervious/impervious surfaces for the existing
development. Paramount Engineering has calculated the additional runoff front the new
development on the east portion of the site. This runoff will be captured in the ponding area at the
southeast corner of the site. The pond will be sized for.2 AF of storage for water quality
• treatment and an additional.31 AF for a 100 year event. The.2 AF will be contained in the
ponding area southeast of the 6-unit building while the ponding area for the I00 event will extend
north of the building and possibly over the drive area south of the building(as shown by the
dotted lines). The ponding area will be piped to drain into the ditch to flow west to the existing
15" pipe under Highway 10. Please call Bob Weigert at Paramount at 771 0544 if you have
additional questions on the drainage issues.
Please call me if you have questions or require additional information.
o;:..2:7.---_ ter J. Pfister,AIA
c Jeff Huggett,MSP
Bob Weigert, Paramount mspj05 •
��LGf i.
•
MEMO
• To: Pamela Sheldon
From: Mark Bishop. Fire Marshal
Subject: Plan Review Case*487-97
Date: May 28, 1997
Access road width is minimally acceptable. We would be MUCH more comfortable
with a 28 foot wide road.
On site fire hydrants will be required. Our policy states that a fire hydrant must be
provided for un-sprinklered buildings when more than 50% of the building is
greater than 150 feet from a public way.
A tri rr awe
rifi MEMORANDUM
•
ST.PAUL.MN Q hfJNNEAt'cJtJS, WI Q 3T.CLOiIR MN Q CfIIPPL'7NA'KLA IM II MADISON,M Q UKFGOUNT7,IN
TO: Pamela Sheldon,Mounds View Community Development Director
FROM: Rocky Keehn,P.E.
DATE: June 11, 1997
RE: Review of Silver Lake Common.Planning Case 487-97
SEX has reviewed the site survey and the proposed building locutions for the above referenced project
as requested. Based on the information provided to us on June 10, 1997, we recommend that the
following issues be discussed in greater detail prior to 5nal approval:
▪ Drainage of the property north of the site.
• Impacts of drainage from Eastwood Road
The following items also wiI need to be provided to SEH prior to a finaliiing our review:
• A site grading planning with proposed elevations that show how the surface water runoff gets to
the pond.
• A grading pian of the pond showing side slopes and pipe inverts.
• Hydrologic ins that intikAt*the expected highwater elevations in the pond for the 1 and
100 year storm events.
Following is a discussion of each item in more detail
Drainage of the property north of the site
Based on the elevations shown on the submitted survey and city contour mao, a low area exist just
north of the proposed site. The outflow elevation,based on the developers survey,is 910.9 feet. It
appears the proposed plan blocks the drainage by ping a building over the natural overflow from
this low arra The developer needs to show how they intend to maintain a 910.9 overflow elevation
with gimii;ar discharge capacity to prevent fume flooding of the areas north of the site.
Impact of drainage from Eastwood Road.
A bituminous swale presently drains ruaof from Eastwood Road to the Highway 10 ditch. The swale
is located on the developers property. The proposed plan locates a pond over the swale and thus may
require a change of the existing drainage outlet from Eastwood Road. Since this is a public road
which discharges runoff over private property, the City should determine the best way to drain 41)
Eastwood Road.
Pamela Sheldon
June 6, 1997
Page 2
We suggest the public works department make a preliminary investigation to determine if a curb
cut
will remain as the primary means to drain Eastwood Road in the future. Another option may be to
install catch basins and storm sewers which discharge to the ditch. A review of the submitted survey
data indicates that it may be difficult to construct catch basins due to the low elevation of Eastwood
Road and high elevation of the Highway 10 ditch.
If the curb cut remains,the existing swale needs to be relocated to drain around the pond if the city
wishes to maintain a direct discharge to the highway ditch. Another option is to work with the
developer and have the pond expanded to provide water quality improvements for both their site and
the madway. If Eastwood Road does drain into the pond,the developee s engineer must include this
additional drainage area in their hydrologic calculations.
Site Grading Plan
Upon review of the plan,we do act have the ditch,parking lot,and pipe slopes. A quick check of the
site indicates that the parking lot has a flat slope which does not provide good drainage.If a surface
elevation of 910.8 is at the northern most end of the site and the pond discharge is at 908.0,the slope
in the parking lot is 0.49 percent(3.8 feet!570 feet). This is a relatively flat slope and may cause
drainage problems such as standing water and ice patches in the parking lot. A final grading plan
should show how this site drains.
III Pend Grading Plan
The developerprovided a rough outline of the pond but did not provide fins?contours. Due to it's
location near pedestrian traffic,a safe pond she r1 d be designed by the developer and reviewed by the
Cry. 'The City needs to verify that the pond meets retention pond standards for safety and function.
At a minimum the pond.should include 10 to 1 side slopes in the first foot of retention volume(or
be fenced), have a water depth of at least four feet, and discharge at an elevation that will be high
enough to drain to the highway ditch.
Hydrologic c icniatiens
A summary of the hydrologic calculations were provided but this information contained no detailed
data. We would like to review all of the hydrologic calculations,fru-furling input data,that was used
to determine the highwarer elevamien.(s)and sediment pond size.
RJKlrjkIJ'TD
SAMA M!D
Mounds View Hydrologic Review of: S
2629-2665 Highway 10
ity lanrttng rcject No. 487-97
Project No. AMOUND9701.00 Packet File: 80,13 •
Date 816/97 Reviewed b+ RJK
Does any at the platted area show up on the NWT map?
YES T NO .
Is any of the area impacted the cities wetland overlays areas?
YES NO
Are there arty hydric soils within the platted area?
YES T NO
What LWMP drainage area is the Plat In?
EW-1
Does the land use change from what was shown in the LWMP?
YES 17- NO
If YES what are the land use changes:
Are there anyproblems
rainage for the area identified in the LWMP
C YES T NO
If so what are they:
Are there a capital Improvement projects for the area identified in the LWMP
YES Q NO
If so what are they:
Are there an vious drainage studies for the area besides the LWMP?
YES I NO
If so what are they:
Comments;
The existing drainage is tins a cl vert under Highway 10.
Item #5
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
• Meeting Date: July 16, 1997
Staff Report by: James Ericson, Planning Associate
Planning Case No.: 487-97
Request: Development Review
Petitioner: MSP Real Estate, Inc.
Location: 2625 - 2665 Highway 10
PIN Nos. 06-30-23-44-0051, 06-30-23-44-0052
06-30-23-43-0012, 06-30-23-43-0013
Zoning/Land Use: R-4, High Density Residential
R-3, Medium Density Residential
Applicable Regulations: Section 1006.06, Development controls
Section 1104.01. General zoning provisions -- yard requirements
Section 1104.02, Area and building size regulations
0 Attachments: Drainage Review Memo from Rocky Keehn, dated 7/9/97
Revised Plans, dated 7/0/97 (Separate Attachment)
Letter from MnDOT, dated 6/26/97
Planning Commission Resolution:No. 513-97 (Parking Variance)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 514-97 (Development Review)
Background:
The applicant, MSP Real Estate, Inc., has requested approval of a development review and a
parking ratio variance for the proposed Silver Lake Commons development at 2625 -2665
Highway 10. A total of 16 new two-level rental townhomes will be created on the now vacant
properties just south of the existing Red Oak Apartments, which will be completely rehabilitated
as a part of this project.
As stated at your meeting held on June 18, 1997, the Planning Commission may be aware that
there has been some discussion with City Council on how this project will be financed and
whether the City is interested in selling the Iand at the corner of Eastwood and Highway 10 to
become a part of this project. These issues are being addressed outside of the development
review process. Staff has reviewed this proposal from the standpoint of whether it meets
development requirements. All of the dimensional requirements associated with this project have
been met, with the exception of the number of parking spaces required. With proof of parking,
0 this requirement can be met.
The discussion at the June 18 meeting focussed on landscaping and drainage. The applicants have
submitted updated grading and drainage, site and landscape plans, date-stamped July 1, 1997.
These plans are included as a separate attachment.
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
Planning Case No. 487-97
July 16, 1997
Page 2 •
Analysis:
`rainage and Ponding:
The drainage proposal is to create a detention pond at the southeast end of the site, which then
would feed water to the Highway 10 ditch. The ditch flows north at this point, and water then goes
through a culvert under Highway 10 to the D.W. Jones property and wetland. While there has been
some discussion with the applicant about piping the water to the wetland on the D.W. Jones property
and creating a detention pond (for water quality purposes) on that property in cooperation with the
property owner, it has been established that there is sufficient room on site to accommodate the
required ponding if this option is not possible. A meeting between the parties has been scheduled but
will occur after this report was written.
The revised drainage plan and stormwater calculations provided by the applicant on July 1, 1997
were forwarded to Rocky Keehn at SEH, Inc., the City's engineer. According to Mr. Keehn, this
drainage plan better addresses most of the issues raised in his review of the applicants' earlier
submittal. These issues were (1) the possibility of flooding occurring on the property north of the site
due to the positioning of the buildings, (2) the need to address the existing bituminous swale which
carries water from Eastwood Road acxross the property, (3) the absence of detailed drainage
calculations, and (4) the lack of contours for the proposed pond. •
The first issue is tentatively resolved by regrading a portion of the property to the north to form a
swale that routes runoff around the parking area to the open area which then slopes toward the pond
at the southeast corner of the site. The applicants, however, will need to obtain a permanent
drainage easement over the regraded area to ensure its function in perpetuity. The second issue is
resolved by the addition of a new swale to replace the existing swale on the property that routes
runoff from Eastwood Road into the Highway 10 drainage ditch. This swale is not on-site, however,
and as such, permission will need to be obtained from Ramsey County, whose right of way it crosses,
and Mounds View's Public Works Department. The ::. ..K
third issue is resolved by the provision of the detailed
drainage calculations which have been reviewed and F '�: ::'
�:.:.;.moi: ...
found acceptable by Mr. Keehn. The Iast issue is
resolved bythe addition of contours to the and which — l � ,� : •-
reveal a 2.5 to 1 slope--well under the maximum of
10 to 1 as suggested by Mr. Keehn. The pond depth is
shown at four feet, also as suggested by Mr. Keehn. 'a
Mr. Keehn raised two additional concerns after `14"
reviewing the revised drainage plans. First, the inlet -
.. , .. .
and outlet to the proposed pond in the southeast corner - "�' 2'.cc„g»
of the site are too close together. This can be remedied Figure 1 Proposed inlet relocation
by sloping the stalls toward the townhouse units and •
relocating the curb cut to the north corner of the parking stalls as indicated in Figure 1 above.
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
Planning Case No. 487-97
July 16, 1997
• Page 3
The second concern regarded a lack of calculations to indicate that the storm sewer under the
southernmost drive (not shown on plans) could accommodate 100-year flows. The applicant has
verified that the size of the pipe is adequate and will provide calculations to support this assertion
before your meeting.
Landscape Plan:
The plans submitted by the applicant on July 1, 1997 include a revised landscape plan which shows
some of the changes that were suggested at your June 18, 1997 meeting. With regard to the
specific plantings, only two changes still need to be made. First, the plan does not show any
landscaping fronting Highway 10 south of the access drive. Depending upon availability, the
applicant will need to show a row of Dwarf Korean Lilac —.-_._ – __
trees or Anthony Waterer Spirea in this location. Second, .- ' \ \9
the Regal Elms should be replaced with Hackberry, as was 7 . •� ��
0
suggested by the City Forester Rick Wriskey. Staff �'-
recommends making four other changes to the landscape 1 X0
and site plan. First, the 26-unit garage building should be . 9�y(-,� d
positioned 18 feet to the east so that plots of greenspace 1
w
remain at either end. This may result in the loss of the { SEED
existing elm tree shown on the plans. If this tree can not be `�_ ��
410 retained, a flowering snow crab should be planted in its
place and additional flowering snow crab should be planted f
in the newly ' r
created greenspace. This greenspace could be CRid. =� I .�
used for parking stalls if needed in the future. Second, a 6EN°" I— — - PrJ4
gate should be added to the chain link fence at its NE °Fr�P°-""`,,=i
northernmost point along Eastwood Road to allow for I - n
pedestrian access and a possible school bus stop. A path Figure 2 Proposed sod line
should be added linking the parking area to Eastwood Road. Third, staff recommends that the sod
line (denoted by the thin dashed line) be realigned to encompass the play structure as shown in
Figure 2 above. Last, the three black hills spruce proposed along Eastwood drive in the seeded
play area should be moved closer to the fenceline to allow for a larger, unimpeded play area.
Access:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is requiring that the applicants add a right
turn lane off of Highway 10 to the development and an acceleration lane for right-turns exiting the
development. The letter from MnDOT is attached. To do this and to remove the existing driveway
and culvert, the applicants will need to obtain a permit from MnDOT. This shall be done prior to
the City issuing building permits for this project.
Parking:
The parking ratio required for multiple family residential units is 2.5 spaces per unit, with one of the
spaces in covered parking. The total number of spaces required for this project would be 56
•
garages and 84 surface spaces, for a total of 140 spaces. The applicants propose 57 covered
garage spaces, one more than what is required for the proposed 56 units (40 units Red Oak
Planning Commission Report
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
Planning Case No. 487-97
July 16, 1997 •
Page 4
Apartments and 16 new townhome units). The plan shows 65 surface parking stalls and sufficient
room to add 18 stalls in areas set aside in greenspace, for a total of 83 spaces—one short of the
required 84 surface parking spaces. The applicants will need to show one additional stall set aside
in greenspace as future parking. Staff recommends that this space be shown attached to the bank
of three stalls north of the mailboxes as shown on the site plan.
Staff is recommending that a parking ratio variance be granted to allow the plan to be approved as
amended. We believe that the ratio for parking for multiple family units in the City's Zoning Code
is too high, especially that the Red Oak buildings are one and two bedroom apartments. More
typical ratios are:
One bedroom 1.0 to 1.5 Two bedroom 1.5 to 2.0
Given these conservative ratios, staff recommends using the following:
Surface Parking: 1.15 uncovered spaces per each dwelling unit
Garage Parking: 1.00 covered spaces per each dwelling unit
Total ratio: 2.15 spaces per dwelling unit
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission grant a parking ratio variance for the Silver •
Lake Commons project proposed by MSP Real Estate, Inc. Based upon the above ratios, 65
uncovered surface parking stalls and 56 garage stalls would be required. Staff has prepared
Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97 approving a variance in the parking ratios for surface
parking from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1.15 spaces per unit. The resolution includes a statement that
the applicant has provided"proof of parking" to meet the full ratio required by the Zoning Code.
Utilities and Easements;Platting:
There are water and sewer lines in both Eastwood Road and Highway 10, so utilities are available
to the site. The applicant will need to replat the site to remove the lot lines since development will
be crossing those lines. A park dedication fee will need to be paid as a result of the replatting. The
need for easements for water, sewer and drainage for the development would be addressed at that
time. There are existing utility lines remaining from a former single family residence on the site that
will need to be removed and stubbed at the property line.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 513-97 approving a
variance in the required number of parking stalls from 84 to 65 surface spaces, subject to the
availability of 19 additional spaces if needed in the future; and, the Planning Commission approve
Resolution No. 514-97, recommending approval of the development review request for the Silver
Lake Commons project proposed by MSP Real Estate, Inc., subject to stipulations noted in the •
resolutions.
NADATAIUSERSTAMSISHAREIDEVCASES1487-971COMMONIRPT
,00040„,A o Minnesota Department of Transportation
:ff Metropolitan Division
��°""o�� Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
1110
Roseville, MN 55113
June 26, 1997
Pamela Sheldon
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Dear Pamela Sheldon:
SUBJECT: MSP Real Estate, Inc.
Site Plan Review S97-045
East of Trunk Highway (TH) 10, North of CSAH 3
Mounds View, Ramsey County
C.S. 6204
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the MSP Real Estate, Inc.
site plan. We find the plan acceptable for further development with consideration of the following
0 comments.
• We require a permit for the relocation of the access to TH 10. We also require construction
of a right turn lane on westbound TH 10 for permit approval. This development proposal
necessitates the turn lane and is the responsibility of the project proposer, the city, or both.
Enclosed is a diagram showing design specification for right turn lanes. In addition, the
applicant must remove the existing access according to our specifications.
The permit applicant must submit plan and cross-sectional drawings of the proposed access,
showing the required turn lane. The new access should have 6:1 slopes or greater at the
entrance. If a culvert is required, it should be installed beyond the clear zone. Please contact
Lars Impola of our Permits Section at 582-1447 for further information and the appropriate
forms.
• We may require a Mn/DOT storm water drainage permit for the proposed development.
Hydraulic computations and drainage area maps, showing before and after conditions and
addressing 100-year storms, must be submitted for our review. Existing drainage patterns
and rates of runoff affecting Mn/DOT right of way should be perpetuated. The site's storm
water discharge rate must not increase. Any questions regarding Mn DOT's drainage
concerns may be directed to Gene Bovy of our Water Resources Section at 779-5053.
Questions regarding the permit process may be directed to Lars Impola of our Permits
• Section.
An equal opportunity employer
Pamela Sheldon
June 26, 1997
1111
page two
• Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between Iand
use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in
complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from TH 10 could exceed noise standards
established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the U.S. Dept. of Housing and
Urban Development, and the U.S. Dept. of Transportation.
Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures. The project proposer should
assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of
any highway noise.
• We strongly encourage consideration of a second access to the site on Eastwood Drive.
We constructed arterials such as TH 10 to serve regional mobility needs rather than to
provide property access. When access points increase or serve greater uses along a
highway, they degrade the highway's capacity and safety. Consideration of a second
access to the site on Eastwood Drive would provide access to TH 10 through the existing
full-movement access at CSAH 3/Eastwood Drive.
• 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. Lars Impola
of our Permits Section may be contacted at for further information regarding the permit
process.
Please contact me at 582-1654 with any questions regarding this review.
Sincerely,
-4,11)
Scott Peters
Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison
c: Dan Soler, Ramsey County Traffic Engineer
i I is
Ii
Z
I°
• I r- I
r-
2. ►
I
. m I
I = II
} Q
i 0 II
I o a I I.
Irn 11
ci I o f
\\i=
C 1 w I ,
'C •A 1 cn
w i2
0 •
II
r
—Si
v
CO ;
07/09/97 12:24 FAX 612 490 2150 SEE ST. PAUL Z002/003
MEMORANDUM
■S7 PAUL,MN C MINNEAPOUS, MN Q ST.CLOUD, MN 0 CJPPEWA FALLS,WI ❑MADISON,WI O LAKE COUNTY,IN
TO: Pamela Sheldon, Community De lopment Director
FROM: Rocky J. Keehn, P.E.
DATE: July 9, 1997
RE: #487-97 -Review of Silver Lake Commons
SEH File Number AMOUND97O1.00 (PF 80.12)
Based on our review of the grading plan (dated 6-27-97), pond layouts (dated 6-27-97), and
calculations (dated 6-26-97)for the above referenced project,SEH offers the following comments for
your consideration:
1. The pond volume proposed is adeq tate to treat the storm water,however,the inlet and outlet el
pipes to the pond are too close together. This will cause"short circuiting"of the pond and thus
greatly reduce the effectiveness of its sediment removing capabilities.
Recommendation: Relocate the inlets to the pond so to discharge on the north side of the
pond or relocate the pond outlet to the southeast corner of the pond.
2. There is a low point catch basin and the beginning of a storm sewer system near the entrance
to the site that will capture runoff from the central drive area and convey the runoff to the
proposed pond. In order for the pond to reduce the flow rate to post-developed conditions,the
100--year runoff to the low point mist be conveyed to the pond. One way is to site the storm
sewer system to handle a 100-year stoLLu. Since there art no storm sewer calculations with the
information submitted for our review, we cannot determine if the storm sewer will handle the
100-year event The other option is to use the east drive to convey the excess flow from the
low point to the pond. Based on the elevations shown on the grading plan, the height of the
curb is about the same as the overflow elevation to the east drive. Hence, it appears that if the
storm sewer system cannot handle the 100-year flow and water will go into the MnDOT ditch
system at a higher rate than the post-developed discharge rate.
Recommendation: Submit calculations that show the storm sewer was sized to hanrile the
100-year flower regrade the entrance to the site to assure excess Sow will
go east to the pond, .
PSm`12 Sheldon
July 9, 1997
Page 2
3. Based on our computer model and the information submitted by the developer, the 100-year
highwater elevation for the pond is 908.2. This will flood most of the open area on the cast
side of the site.
Recommendation: The highwater elevation is acceptable since the flooding is infrequent and
should not muse any damage to the surrounding vegetation.
4. It appears that grading is proposed to be completed outside of the property owned by the
developer (as noted in your MEMO to me on July I). During a site visit with the developer
they discussed the possibility of working with the property owner to the north to make sure they
do not change the existing overflow conditions.
Recommendation: The developer will need written approval from the owner to the north
before they proceed. Other options include a storm sewer down the central drive from the low
• area on the property north of the development or moving the far north drive to make sure the
grading occurs on the developers property.
The following table addresses your concerns listed in the MEMO sent to us on July 1, 1997.
411 Item from SEH comments
your
memorandum
1 Addressed by the developer when they added storm sewer beginning near the
entrance to the development
2 Addressed by the developer when they added storm sewer beginning near the
entrance to the development
3 Addressed as Item 2 above. Also,better use of the land is obtained by using
multiple use detention areas (utilization of the proposed flood area for recreational
use when its not raining)then a pond with unflooded upland surrounding it.
4 Item 4 above
5 Item 2 above
RJKlrjkfMER
• S:tdAMMANO WOCX gq Wrp
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 513-97
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE IN PARKING RATIOS FOR
SILVER LAKE COMMONS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
PROPOSED AT 2625- 2665 HIGHWAY 10;
PLANNING CASE NO. 487-97
WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate, Inc. has applied for a variance of parking ratios associated
with the renovation of the existing Red Oak Apartments and the development of 16 townhouse
units on parcels located at 2625 - 2665 Highway 10, property zoned R-3 and R-4, Medium and
High Density Residential Districts, legally described as follows:
LOTS 78 THROUGH 82 AND LOT 83, EXCEPT THE REAR 150 FEET THEREOF;
SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 23, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View Zoning Code establishes the parking
ratios by specific use; which, as they relate to this project, are as follows:
Multiple Family: •
p 1.5 uncovered, surface parking spaces per unit and at least 1
covered garage space per unit, for a total of 2.5 per unit.
WHEREAS, according to the Zoning Code, the number of parking spaces that would be
required for the 56 units proposed by the applicant are as follows:
Surface parking (uncovered): 56 x 1.5 = 84
Garage parking (covered): 56 x 1.0 = 56
Total parking spaces required: 140
WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed parking ratios used by other municipalities and parking
guidelines as developed by the American Planning Association and recommend the following
ratios:
Multiple Family: 1.15 uncovered, surface parking spaces per unit and at least 1
covered garage space per unit, for a total of 2.15 per unit.
WHEREAS, utilizing the adjusted parking ratios, the number of parking spaces required
for this development would be 121 spaces, broken down as follows:
Surface parking (uncovered): 56 x 1.15 = 65 •
Garage parking (covered): 56 x 1.0 = 56
Total parking spaces required: 121
Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97
Silver Lake Commons Project
Planning Case No. 487-97
• July 16, 1997
Page 2
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to provide 65 surface spaces and 57 garage spaces
for a total of 122 spaces, one more than what would be required using the adjusted parking ratios.
There is sufficient room on the property to convert greenspace into an additional 19 spaces to
meet the 140 spaces required by the Zoning Code.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this request for a variance in parking ratios:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Revised Site, Grading and Landscape Plans, date stamped 7/1/97
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact
regarding the requirements for granting variances as set forth in Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 of the
Mounds View Zoning Code:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property 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.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant
The existing Red Oak Apartments presently do not meet the parking requirements as
established in Section 1121.13 of the Zoning Code. This condition is pre-existent to the
development project under consideration as Silver Lake Commons and was not caused by
the applicants or the current owners of the Red Oak Apartments. While there is ample
room to provide the full amount of parking required by the Zoning Code, the applicant
would prefer to bank the stalls as greenspace in order to beautify the site and to provide
additional open areas for recreation. Research has shown that the Mounds View.parking
requirements are much higher in comparison to neighboring communities and communities
across the country. The applicant should not be responsible for the City's parking
requirements. It is advantageous to bank excess stalls as greenspace if the parking provided
will be adequate for the use proposed.
b. The literal interpretation or 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.
d. . That granting the 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
The granting of variances to allow for"Proof of Parking" is considered to be a benefit to
the environment by not maximizing impervious surfaces in a development. Similar
variances have been granted for other recent projects.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97
Silver Lake Commons Project
Planning Case No. 487-97
July 16, 1997 •
Page 3
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
The ratios proposed for the project are as follows: 1.15 uncovered spaces per dwelling
unit (65 spaces) and one garage space per dwelling unit (56). These ratios are consistent
with surveys of other jurisdictions and information from the American Planning
Association, and represent a suitable adjustment. The conditions on this resolution require
that sufficient space be reserved on the site plan for providing the 19 spaces needed to
meet the City's current parking ratios.
£ The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title or to other
property in the same zone.
The granting of this variance will not conflict with the purpose of this Title in that parking
will be provided using accepted parking ratios for multiple family developments.
Sufficient room is available to build the additional parking required by the ratios in the
City Code, if it becomes evident that parking is needed in the future. The approximate
3,420 square-foot reduction of impervious surface is an environmental and aesthetic
benefit.
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 granting of this variance will be a benefit to neighboring properties mainly for
aesthetic reasons by preserving additional greenspace and reducing impervious surface.
Traffic will not increase on the adjacent streets as a result of this variance.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the criteria for granting a
variance in this case have been met.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby approve a variance in the parking ratios applicable to the proposed Silver Lake
Commons development ac submitted by MSP Real Estate, Inc. with the following stipulations:
1. The parking ratios applicable to this property shall be as follows:
Surface Parking (uncovered): 1.15 spaces per dwelling unit •
Garage Parking (covered): 1 space per dwelling unit
2. Prior to action by the City Council on the development review for this project, and
in order for this variance to remain in effect, the applicant shall:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97
Silver Lake Commons Project
Planning Case No. 487-97
July 16, 1997
• Page 4
a. Revise the parking layout to show one additional future parking space so
that the total number of possible surface parking stalls is 84, of which 19
spaces are shown in parking areas which could be added if deemed
necessary by the City or property owner.
b. Add a notation to the site plan which states:
"A variance in required parking ratios was approved for this property by
Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97. The parking ratios approved for
this property are as follows:
1.15 surface space per dwelling unit
1 garage space per dwelling unit
The property owner is obligated to build up to cm additional 19 parking spaces,
which would meet the parking ratios required by the Zoning Code, if deemed
necessary by the City based on future parking patterns and evidence that parking
needs cannot be satisfied on-site. The property owner shall be notified in writing
that additional parking must be built, and upon such notice, shall construct the
additional parking within 3 months, with consideration for weather conditions "
3. Approval of this variance shall be null and void if any one of the following
approvals are not obtained for this project:
a. Minnesota Department of Transportation permit approval
b. Development Review approval by the City Council
Adopted this 16th day of July, 1997.
Jerry Peterson, Planning Commission Chairperson
Al LEST
Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
(SEAL".,)
NMATAIUSERSIF'AMS\S HARMDE V CASES1487-971PARK-VAR.RES
•
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMIVIISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 514-97
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FOR 1111; SILVER LAKE COMMONS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED AT
2625- 2665 HIGHWAY 10; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 487-97
'WHEREAS, MSP Real Estate, Inc. has applied for a development review to renovate the
existing Red Oak Apartments and to construct a 16-unit townhouse development on the parcels
located at 2625 - 2655 Highway 10, property zoned R-3 and R-4, medium and high density
residential, legally described as follows:
LOTS 78 THROUGH 82 AND LOT 83, EXCEPT THE REAR 150 FEET THEREOF;
SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 23, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View Municipal Code requires that a •
development review be conducted for this and similar projects; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding
this development review request: •
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Revised Site,Grading and Landscape Plans,dated 7/1/97
4. Letter from the Applicant
5. Letter from MnDOT, dated 6/26/97
6. Hydrological Review by Rocky Keehn, dated 6/6/97
7. Memo from Rocky Keehn,dated 7/9/97
8. Memo from Mark Bishop,Fire Marshal,dated 5/28/97
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made findings that the application from MSP
Real Estate, Inc. meets the dimensional requirements as stated below:
Required Proposed: Met 7
Building Setbacks:
Front (Highway 10): 30 feet 48 feet Yes
Front (Eastwood): 30 f.. 30
r.�vu�. �v LGZ4, �v lost I es
Rear: 30 feet 48 feet Yes
Parking Lot Setbacks: 5 feet 5 feet Yes
Minimum lot width: 100 feet 390 feet Yes
Minimum lot area:
(2,500 square feet per D. U.):
Existing Red Oak
Silver Lake Commons (New) 40,000 sq.ft. 94,090 sq.ft. Yes
' Planning Commission Resolution No. 514-97
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
July 16, 1997
0 Page 2
Building height: 45 feet 30 feet Yes
Minimum floor area per D.U.:
Three bedroom units: 870 sq.ft. 1,320 sq.ft. Yes
Four bedroom units: 920 sq.ft. 1,620 sq.ft. Yes
Parking requirements:1
Uncovered: (1.5 per unit) 84 spaces 65 spaces No*
Covered: (1.0 per unit) 56 spaces 57 spaces Yes
*With proof of parking, a total of 86 spaces can be provided
(1) A variance in parking ratios to allow a reduction to 65 surface spaces was granted by the
Planning Commission in Resolution No.513-97. Approval of this development review is
contingent upon approval of this variance.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the landscape plan as
proposed satisfies the requirements of the Code as amended below:
The landscaping proposed for this site has been reviewed by the City Forester, who has
recommended changing one of the tree types (Regal Elm) for a more appropriate species
(Hackberry). The sod line should be realigned to encompass the children's play area as
1111/ indicated in the staff report. A gate should be added to the chain link fence along
Eastwood Road to accommodate pedestrian access and a path connecting the parking lot
with Eastwood Road. A row of Anthony Waterer Spirea or Dwarf Korean Lilac
(depending upon availability) should be added in between the parking lot and Highway 10
front of the townhouse units. The 26 stall garage building should be shifted down 18 feet
to allow for greenspace at either end, instead of only at one end. A Spring Snow Crab
tree shall be planted on both sections of greenspace. If the 10 inch Elm shown on the
landscape plan can be retained after the garages have been repositioned, the Spring Snow
Crab at this end will not be necessary. Last, the three Black Hills Spruce shown to be
added in the open area along Eastwood Road should be pushed back toward the fenceline
so as to maintain an open, unimpeded playing area.
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the drainage plan for this site and has found
it acceptable and consistent with the Master Drainage Plan previously approved by the City
Council and Rice Creek Watershed District; and,
WHEREAS, the City Fire Marshal has reviewed the site plans and finds the layout meets
Fire Department requirements for emergency vehicle access.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that the development review for the Silver Lake
0 Commons development project proposed by MSP Real Estate, Inc. be approved subject to the
following contingencies:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 514-97
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
July 16, 1997
Page 3
Prior to action by the City Council on this development review, the applicant shall:
a. Revise the landscape plan to show Hackberry trees in place of the Regal
Elm trees.
b. Revise the parking layout to show one additional parking space so that the
total count of surface parking is 84 spaces, of which 19 spaces are
indicated as future stalls which could be added if deemed necessary by the
City or property owner.
c. Add a note to the site plan which states:
"A variance in required parking ratios was approved for this property by
Planning Commission Resolution No. 513-97. The parking ratios approved for
this property are as follows:
1.15 surface space per dwelling unit
I garage space per dwelling unit
The property owner is obligated to build up to an additional 19 parking spaces,
411
which would meet the parking ratios required by the Zoning Code, if deemed
necessary by the City based on future parking patterns and evidence that parking
needs cannot be satisfied on-site. The property owner shall be notified in writing
that nriditional parking must be built, and upon such notice, shall construct the
additional parking within 3 months, with consideration for weather conditions. "
d. Revise the site plan to show the repositioning of the 26-stall garage
building 18 feet to the southeast so that a plot of greenspace is located at
either end of the garages. A tree should be planted on both plots of
resulting greenspace. The existing Elm tree may be substituted for the
recommended Spring Snow Crab if it can be saved.
e. Add a gate to the chain link fence and add a path to the site plan that
connects the parking lot with Eastwood Road, north of the play area.
f. Add a row of Anthony Waterer Spirea or Dwarf Korecm Lilac (either,
depending upon species avaiiabuiry)to the area between the parking
lot/driveway and the Highway 10 right of way in front of the townhouses.
g. • Change the sod-line indicated on the site plan to include the play structure
as shown in Figure 2 of the staff report.
•
h. Move the three Black Hills Spruces shown in the open play area back to
the fenceline to maintain an open, unimpeded play area.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 514-97
Silver Lake Commons Development Review
July 16, 1997
Page 4
• I. Obtain a permanent drainage easement for that area on 7800 Eastwood
Road to be regraded for drainage and flood control purposes. The
easement shall be executed prior to approval of the development review by
the City Council.
2. Prior to obtaining any building permits or grading permits, the applicant shall
perform the following:
a. Install snow fences or another type of demarcation device around those
areas where trees are to be retained. The area shall be of sufficient width
so as to protect the trees' root systems. The use of heavy equipment shall
be prohibited in these areas, and the property owner/developer shall be
responsible for monitoring construction activities to make certain these
restrictions are enforced.
b. Obtain permit approval from MnDOT for the relocation of the entree to
the project area, the construction of a right turn lane into the project, an
acceleration lane for right turns exiting the project and for any regiadilig
within the MnDOT right of way.
110 c. A development contract shall be drafted and reviewed by the applicant. It
shall include surety for construction of the Highway 10 right of way
improvements. The contract shall be executed prior to the issuance of
building permits.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 16th day of July, 1997.
Jerry Peterson, Chairperson
Al EST:
Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
0 NADATA\USERSTAMSISHAREZEVCASES1487-971DEV REVU.RES
��x, ' r-
+ �'i4'��c.i ::,y... �i '�tiJr�Fiar.;�„8�x���, — � --�' ��lisP
real estate ' services inc
June 9, 1997
Cathy Bennett
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Dear Cathy:
As you requested, we are enclosing the updated development budget on the captioned
property.
We have substantially reduced the scope of the project to include only 16 new
townhome units, while still maintaining a large play/recreation area. We have also added an
indoor recreation center to provide further safe play areas for children.
Please note the following changes in our updated budget:
1) Land cost reduced due to eliminating one lot with single family home
el2) Construction Cost is less due to eliminating 12 units
Lc3, C3) Soft Costs & reserves reduced due to a reduction in development fees
44 and reduced construction interest
k /, 4) First Mortgage reduced due to fewer units
62)))\r 5) Equity less because fewer units
6) Holman proceeds more due to larger units
7) Ramsey County less because only funding rehab
8) Federal Home Loan Bank less because fewer units
9) Relocation costs of $220,000 added to budget
10) Added more reserves due to requirement of Holman units
11) Plan to apply to MHFA/FHF in August to fill $290,000 gap
I have also enclosed our preliminary letter we sent you with our updated budget
corrections incorporated.
Sincerely,
.--7 // '
incer y,// ' 7-",
Jef,, ', g tt `/ ,
Vi e 'r sident /
• MSP Real Estate, Inc.
jefnms2cath.hr
311 Fifth Avenue North • Minneapolis, AIN 55401 • 612-33 ;-5144 • fax 612-3 6-4565
ASSUMPTIONS \
DATE 05-Jun-97 -
PROJECT NAME MOUNDSVIEW/NEW CONSTR.&REHAB
NUMBER OF UNITS 56
DATE PLACED IN SERVICE 01-Jul-98
OCCUPANCY 95.00%
TAXES/UNIT $675
OPERATING EXPENSE/UNIT $2,550
ANNUAL RESERVE/UNIT $250
1. USES
o�b�
LAND AND BUILDING $1,310,000
HARD COSTS 5ti u 9 O $2,490,000
SOFT COSTS — iatto$c) • $710,000
RELOCATION $220,000
RESERVES $205,000 •211 410 cyoa
TOTAL $4,935,000
2. SOURCES •
FIRST MORTGAGE �-75. � '
$1,350,000 adv
EQUITY (INVESTOR/DEVELOPER) 36'1- $1,663,000 29.
HOLMAN los• $978,000 fO-'-
RAMSEY COUNTY (HOME LOAN) Ys, $200,000 y .2c/Wv
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK II $224,000 ilp
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW (TIF LOAN) sfo $230,000
MHFA (DEFERRED LOAN) ' $290,000 i /oo,404
TOTAL $4,935,000
tr'hv.+. a e fe.42
•
. INCOME/EXPENSE ANALYSIS
ANNUAL
# UNITS RENT/UNIT INCOME
2 BEDROOM - HOLMAN 5 $258 $15,480
3 BEDROOM - HOLMAN 1 $308 $3,696
4 BEDROOM - HOLMAN 4 $351 $16,848
1 BEDROOM - APT 16 $509 $97,728
2 BEDROOM - APT 19 $614 $139,992
3 BEDROOM - TH 11 $656 $86,592
TOTALS 56 $360,336
GROSS RENTAL INCOME $360,336
OCCUPANCY 95.00%
NET RENTAL INCOME $34Z319
LAUNDRY & PARKING @ $16,128
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME $358,447
OPEL ESTATE TAX $675 ($37,800)
RATING EXPENSE @ $2,550 ($142,800)
ANNUAL REPL RESERVE @ $250 4 ($14,000)
ASSET MANAGEMENT FEE @ 2.00% 6 by tk ($7,169) �/
�'T
NET OPERATING INCOME $156,678 i-IA
):44/1'irrt
DEBT SERVICE @ 9.00% ($142,509) V �
CASH FLOW $14,169 Lcao hr
g
fesi h.eAL ci c S k Loa, r e t
Lilo 3is ,.\r 6 - ‘t yv--
•
•
wroSiP.`.-' n5 ' w fF 9•+r!��'� . { + �JLl t ,) W -•`t
'� Y. " r r s :_F _ .7. y .- wc • � r; t
ihMii - f, ai_
SSP
real estate - services Inc
•
June 9, 1997
Cathy Bennett
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
RE: Housing
Mounds View, MN
Dear Cathy:
As we participated in the City's public hearing process regarding the Highway 10 corridor, it
became clear to us that the Pleasantwood Apartments (now re-named Red Oak Apartments)
was the City's most problematic multi-family property -- i.e. deferred maintenance, poor
management and a high number of police calls. This is doubly problematic, as the property is
prominently situated along Highway 10, the gateway to Mounds View.
We thus began working on a proposal that would not only clean-up the deferred maintenance,
but would transform this property into an asset that would speak to the quality Mounds View
desires for its gateway -- the same quality we achieved in Silver Lake Pointe Apartments.
110
Concept
Our project concept to achieve these goals is as follows:
1.) Totally renovate the project inside and out so it looks and feels brand new.
2.) Build 16 new townhomes on the adjacent 2 acres.
3.) Build a shared driveway and parking, so that both properties will be
operated as one.
4.) Configure the site to maximize green space and provide a safe play area
for kids.
Benefits
The benefits of this project to the City are as follows:
1.) Transform problem property into architecturally aesthetic buildings consistent with
wants to portray
the image Mounds View in its gateway.
2.) Provides high level of quality and rehabilitation not otherwise achievable.
3.) Provides additional tax base to the City.
4.) Design maximizes green space and provides safe play area for children. •
311 Fifth .Avenue North • Minneapolis. MN 55401 • 612-337-5144 • fax 612-336-4565
• Request
In order to transform this property into the quality level consistent with Silver Lake Pointe,
our request to the City would be as follows:
1.) We request that the EDA sell its land to MSP at a market price.
2.) We request that the City provide a $230,000 low interest, deferred loan to the
project, from excess proceeds from existing TIF districts.
3.) We request that the City approve the setaside of ten units in the property for rental
as public housing. (approved in May)
4.) We request that the City approve the ownership structure of the property as a
Leasehold Cooperative, thus allowing the property to receive the benefit of
homestead tax rates.
In order to achieve the quality level the City desires, these requests are critical to the
transformation of this property.
PROPERTY
The intent of our development proposal is to develop (and rehabilitate) this property such that
it is indistinguishable from other new market-rate housing in the area. This was our goal with
. Silver Lake Pointe Apartments, and we believe the same goal is achievable here. The property
will consist of 12 new 3-bedroom and four new 4-bedroom townhomes. Each townhome will
have 2 stories, an attached garage, washer/dryer hook-ups, 13/4 baths, individual gas-fired forced
air furnace, and a full appliance package. The 3-bedroom units will contain a spacious 1,320 sq.
ft. including a large eat-in kitchen. The 4-bedroom units will contain 1,470 sq. ft. with the same
amenities. The 3-acre site was designed to maximize green space, and allow for placement of
a play area in the safest possible location, away from Highway 10 traffic.
The rehabilitation of the existing 40 units will be extensive. Our goal is to change the character
of the buildings and units, and thus do away with the deferred maintenance that has plagued this
property in the past. Our plans include deleting mansard roofs, adding a pitched roof, tearing
down the old parking garages and building new, more attractive garages. We will also
reconfigure the parking to add more green space in front of the buildings. The unit interiors will
be completely updated including new windows, new carpet, new vinyl, new appliances, new
cabinets, new furnaces, new heaters and new fixtures as needed. The goal is to offer a totally
revived high quality property inside and out - quality of which residents and neighbors will be
proud.
410
RENT LEVELS
Our rent levels will increase over existing rents on the 40-unit apartment property, but will still
be affordable to area residents. The following rents are estimated for our units:
1-bedroom $509/month (includes heat)
2-bedroom $614/month (includes heat)
3-bedroom townhouse $656/month (plus heat)
4-bedroom townhouse $720/month (plus heat)
Detached garages $30/month
These rents are in line with market rents in the area, and are affordable to families whose
incomes range from $20,000 - $45,000/year.
DEVELOPER
The developer will be a joint venture between MSP Real Estate, Inc. and Affordable Suburban
Housing. MSP Real Estate,Inc. is a development and construction firm specializing in affordable
housing. Milo Pinkerton, the President of MSP, has been involved in the development and
construction of over 1,000 units of multi-family housing. Since its inception in 1988, MSP has
completed over 600 units of multi-family rental housing. MSP's construction company is headed
by an individual with over 20 years of construction experience, including over 2,100 multi-family
units. MSP will be developer and general contractor for this apartment project. Affordable
110
Suburban Housing is a non-profit company that works with municipalities to help define and
implement their housing goals.
FINANCING
In order to meet the high quality standards Mounds View desires, we need to assemble a layered
financing package from a variety of sources. This layered financing approach enables Mounds
View to reap the benefits of the aforementioned high quality standards.
FIRST MORTGAGE
The developer will arrange a conventional first mortgage loan from a life insurance company in
the amount of $1,350,000. We have introduced the lender to this project, and based on MSP's
track record, the lender is prepared to provide a financing commitment.
EQUITY
The developer will provide for an equity investment in the property totalling $1,663,000. The
source of this investment will be from the developer and an investor. The investor has also
reviewed this proposal and is prepared to provide an equity commitment.
•
• HOME FUNDS
We have applied for, and Ramsey County has set aside, $200,000 in HOME funds. This would
be structured as a long term loan at or below market rate of interest. We have met with Ramsey
County and have a high degree of confidence in Ramsey County's support of this request .
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK GRANT
We have applied for a $224,000 grant from the Federal Home Loan Bank to help keep rents
affordable. The Federal Home Loan Bank has invested in three of our previous projects, and thus
we have a strong confidence that they will look favorably at this investment.
SUBSIDIZED FUNDING
We have applied for $978,000 in proceeds from the Holman Decree. This substantial funding
level is critical to maintaining the quality level we have proposed. In exchange for the Holman
investment, we would be required to set aside seven units for rent to families on the Minneapolis
Public Housing waiting list, and another three units would be set aside for Mounds View
residents. It is critical to keep in mind that we are not required to accept any potential residents
for these (or any of our) units unless they meet our rigorous screening standards. All residents
must pass a criminal background check, have good credit history, have strong references from
. past landlords, and be able to afford the rents we charge. In order to receive the Holman equity
investment, the City must approve the "Holman Units" and must approve a 5-10% payment-in-
lieu of taxes on these ten units. We estimate the taxes on these ten units would be approximately
$300/unit/year x 10 units = $3,000/year. Obviously the taxes on the remaining 46 units would
be at a higher rate.
EDA LAND/CITY LOAN
We are requesting that the EDA sell its .6-acre parcel of land to MSP at a market price
(estimated at $35,000), and make a TIF contribution of $230,000 to help fund costs of land
assemblage and extensive land improvements. Thus the net TIF request from the City would be
$230,000 - $35,000 = $195,000. This funding will offset the costs of land assembly and
reconfiguring the project entrance and parking areas to help portray a quality image to the
community and residents. This $195,000 investment spurs over $4,900,000 of total investment.
LEASEHOLD COOPERATIVE/REAL ESTATE TAXES
Although the entire property will be owned by a partnership, controlled by MSP Real Estate and
Affordable Suburban Housing as the general partners, the developer will form a Cooperative
Board comprised of property residents to provide input into the upkeep and operations of this
property. This board helps provide a sense of ownership to the residents, and most importantly,
residents receive the benefit of homestead tax rates. Based on preliminary discussions with the
• Ramsey County Assessor we are estimating the following real estate tax levels:
Value 46 units @ $55,000/unit $2,530,000
Homestead Tax Classification x 1.0%
$25,300 •
Estimated Tax Rate x 1.37
Annual Taxes on 46 units $34,700
Payment-in-lieu of tax on 10 units $3,000
Total Tax (Estimated) $37,700
This property will thus be adding to the City's tax base, as the current tax base for these
properties is $32,479.40/year.
CONSISTENT WITH CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDATIONS
After months of intensive study and numerous public meetings, the City's consultant, SRF
Consulting Group, has recommended that these separate properties be incorporated into a
unified project, and be developed as apartments and townhomes. This is precisely our
proposal, and we believe (as do your consultants) that this is the highest and best use for this
property. We also evaluated this property as a complete redevelopment opportunity (your
consultants performed the same analysis), and came to the conclusion that it was
economically infeasible to acquire and tear down the existing 40-unit property. The funding
gap under such a scenario would be well in excess of $1,250,000. We believe that our
development proposal offers the City the highest possible quality at the lowest possible cost
to the City.
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
Beyond providing quality property improvements, the key to maintaining quality over time is
attentive, professional, on-site property management. Similar to Silver Lake Pointe
Apartments, MSP will build an on-site management office so the property manager can
conduct professional management operations from the property. Also key to the project's
success is to hire a professional management company with experience in this particular
property type. After evaluating several professional management companies, MSP has
selected Danziesen Properties to manage this property. Danziesen has specific experience in
managing turnaround properties.
PROJECT TIMELINE
1.) City Resolution approving Holman Funding (April 1997)
2.) Loan Approval (July 1997)
3.) Plan Approval (July 1997)
4.) Land Purchase (September 1997)
•
5.) Construction Start (October 1997)
6.) Construction Completion (June 1998)
Under this proposal, the City's $195,000 investment spurs over $4,900,000 of investment in your
community, and substantially upgrades an under-utilized property.
• We hope the City of Mounds View will look favorably on the aforementioned requests. We look
forward to working with you once again to provide quality housing in your community.
Sincerely
• /1111
l
Milo Pinkerton
President
MSP Real Estate Services, Inc.
•
.
jcath4.1tr
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Silver Lake Commons Apartments is being proposed on the property at the Northwest corner of
County Road I and Highway 10. The property is conveniently located close to shopping centers,
support services, the library, a city park, and public transportation.
The property will be comprised of 16 brand new three- and four-bedroom townhomes in three
two-story clusters. The property will also contain 40 totally rehabilitated one- and two-bedroom
apartments in two three-story buildings.
The two separate properties will be unified into one property with a shared entryway, single
professional management company, and common design elements. We have designed this
property to maximize greenspace and operate as one apartment community.
The combined site is in excess of 3.7 Acres, and will have its entrance and signage on Highway
10. We have designed a generous greenspace and play area protected from Highway 10 by three
building clusters. The site will contain a management/leasing office to allow for on-site
management. We have also included a recreation center/community room to provide additional
positive opportunities for children. The old garages of the existing apartment complex will be
demolished, and new garages will be built to allow for more efficient traffic patterns and to
provide additional greenspace.
The 16 new townhomes will contain 12 three-bedroom units and four four-bedroom units. Each
townhome will have an attached single car garage, washer/dryer hook-ups, 13/4 baths, large eat-in
kitchen, gas-fired, forced-air furnace, and a full compliment of appliances including dishwasher,
disposal, refrigerator and range. The three-bedroom townhomes are generously sized at 1,320
sq. ft. and the four-bedroom townhomes are over 1,470 sq. ft. Each townhome is two-stories,
and the buildings will be clustered in groups of six and eight units.
The 40 totally rehabilitated apartment units will contain 16 one-bedroom units and 24 two-
bedroom units. Our rehabilitation plan is to substantially change the character of these apartment
buildings so they look and feel brand new. To accomplish this we plan to remove the mansard
roof system, and replace them with more attractive hip roofs. We plan to retain the bricks and
replace the wood siding with low maintenance vinyl. All of the windows will also be replaced,
with the result being that the apartments will have an all new look from the outside. Our plan
is to use similar colors on both the townhome and apartment exteriors, so the perception will be
that this is one property. We plan to demolish the existing garages, and build 40 new and re-
configured garages to make traffic flow more efficient, provide each apartment with its own
garage, and improve the overall aesthetics of the property. We will also re-configure the parking
areas to add more greenspace. in front of the apartments. The apartment interiors will also be
totally renovated so residents will feel as though they are living in new units. We will replace
carpets, vinyl, kitchen cabinets, counters, appliances, air conditioners, light fixtures, furnaces and
water heaters. The result will be a property that looks and feels like new.
• With all of these upgrades, rents will increase from their existing levels, but they should still
remain affordable to Mounds View's residents. The new rents we are proposing are as follows:
One -bedroom $509
Two-bedroom $614
Three-bedroom $656
Four-bedroom $720
Detached garages $ 30
These rents are affordable to households earning $20,000 - $45,000/year.
Our plans include a construction start in the Fall of 1997, so that units will be ready for
occupancy from Spring to Summer of 1998.
•
• jeff\propdsc2.1tr
06/20/97 07:22 COMMUNITY PARTNERS INC. 4 16127843462 NO.077 P002
SILVER TAKE COMMONS PROJECT •
Date: June 20, 1997
From: Dave Maroney
•
Subject: June 9, 1997 Project Description
MSP Real Estate Services (the "Developer") has prepared a revised proposal for Silver Lake
Commons. The proposal is described by letters dated June 9, 1997 and "Assumptions" dated
June 5, 1997.
Questions, Clarifications and Comments
1. A comparative analysis (March 27, 1997 to June 9, 1997) has been prepared to
iIIustrate variations between the proposed sources and usesof funds estimates:
Source of Funds
March 27, 1997 June 9, 1997
% of TDC Per Unit (68) % of TDC Per Unit.(56) •
First Mortgage 33.989 $27,941 27.356 $24,107
Equity 33.721 $27,721 33.698 $29,696
HOME 7.156 $ 5,882 4.053 $ 3,571
Federal HLB 4.830 $ 3,971 4.539 $ 4,000
Holman 16.190 $13,309 19.818 $17,464
City (TIF) 4.114 $ 3,382 4.661 $ 4,107
MHFA 0 � 0 5.875 $ 5.180
Total 100.000 $82,206 100.000 $88,125
Use of Funds
March 27, 1997 June 9, 1997
Per Unit (681 Per Unit (56)
Land/Building $20,809 $23,393
Hard Costt, $42,721 $44 464
Soft Costs $17,279 $12,679
Relocation $ 0 ({) $ 3,929
Reserves $ L397 $ 3,660
Total $82,206 $88,125 •
(i') Later revised to include $200,000.
06/20/97 07:22 COMMUNITY PARTNERS INC. 4 16127843462 NO.077 P003
a. As discussed previously, further detail relating to the terms associated with
the Source of Funds proposal is needed, particularly debt financing (First
Mortgage, HOME, TIF participation, and MHFA funding).
b. Further detail and description of the Use of Funds is also needed to evaluate
the request for TIF funds. Of particular importance are the assumptions and
expectations relating to Relocation (Displacement) and Land Acquisition.
c. New TIF laws redefine "tax increment" and could apply here depending upon
the details of participation.
2. The issues which must be addressed by the City of Mounds View'include
zoning/permits, Livable Communities, TIF request/details, the Leasehold
Cooperative, Holman request, and the sale of land owned by the Economic
Development Authority. If the City of Mounds View is generally supportive of
the proposed development concept, it would appear that the issues could be
resolved, subject to further discussions with the Developer and the suggested
"financing partners."
3. The Legislature has authorized a new property tax class for "low-income" housing.
CIass 4d provides for a 1% class rate (same as the Leasehold Cooperative) subject
to income limits, five (.5) year rent restriction agreement with MHFA, and
compliance with minimum housing standards. This option could be pursued by
the Developer.
4. The March 27, 1997 proposal suggested that of the 28 townhome units built., 93%®
would be 3 bedroom and 7% would be 4 bedroom. The June 9, 1997 proposal
suggests that 16 townhome units will be built with 75% being 3 bedroom and 25%
having 4 bedrooms. In that the City of Mounds View has been asked to become
a financial partner , it would be helpful to review the market study findings
relating to the project, including rents, unit mix and need.
•
CM OF
11111iD2
-oPhone: (612) 717-4000P•,0EW Fax: (612) 784-3462
r
o
gS
r
e
ss • Partneyct.
June 23, 1997
Mr. Jeff Huggett
MSP Real Estate
311 Fifth Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55401
VIA FAX: 612-336-4565
Dear Jeff:
Dave Maroney with Community Partners reviewed your revised budget for the Silver Lake
Commons project This project includes a request for the sale of EDA owned land and a loan
from tax increment funds collected from Mounds View's existing districts. Attached is a memo
which outlines his initial analysis and request of additional information. Specifically, I would
like to see the following: Ili
► Breakout of land/building costs by parcel and copies of the purchase agreements with
land owners.
► Breakout of soft costs to include the amount of developer fee and contractor profit.
► Explanation of debt service under the income/expense analysis.
At this time we do not feel fully prepared to have the EDC make a recommendation on your
request until we have received and reviewed the additional information. Therefore, we are
canceling the EDC meeting this Thursday. Your request will be reviewed by the EDC on July 24
and formal action on the sale of the land and loan request can be made by the EDA at the July 28
meeting.
We have scheduled a meeting with Ramsey County, MHFA and Minneapolis Public Housing
Agency for this Thursday morning at 8:00 a.m. to review documentation needed for analysis of
the project from all public funding sources. We will jointly make a request to minimize
duplication and miscommunication. In addition our attorney is reviewing the purchase
agreement, Holman Cooperative Agreement and documentation that may be needed to comply
with the use of tax increment funds.
Sincerely,2
r •ath nnett, Dir. of Economic Development
PflIMTEO WITH 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 «t
SOY1NKf Tx,
recycled Paper
Equal Opportunity Employer
4ulf, ,, i :' - a'3 Li. •v �r
' _ tS i� _ tri
real estate ser 1 ices inc
SJune 25, 1997
Cathy Bennett
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
RE: Silver Lake Commons
Mounds View, MN
In response to your letter and attached memo, we offer the following information:
1) Land/Building Costs
A) Red Oak Apartments Purchase Price is $1,200,000.
B) Vacant land adjacent to Red Oaks to the east (1.31 Acres),
Purchase Price is $75,000.
C) City Land purchase offer (.6 Acres) is $35,000 --
($1.34/sq.ft. - same as other vacant land).
• 2) Break-out of Soft Costs
Architect/Engineering $73,000
Builder's Risk Insurance $5,000
Construction Interest $80,000
Financing Fees $60,000
Title/Recording $20,000
Market Study $8,000
Appraisal $5,000
Environmental/Soils/Survey/Misc. $22,000
Tax Credit Fees/Taxes $18,000
Legal/Accounting/Syndication/
Cost Certification $79,000
Rent-up/Marketing $40,000
Developer Overhead $100,000
• Developer Profit $200,000
Total Soft Costs $710,000
371 Frith Avenue .North • Minneapolis, .61.V 55401 • 612-337-3144 • fax 612-336-465
3) Debt Service
Annual Debt Service
1 A) First Mortgage $1,350,000 @ 9%/30 yrs. $130,349
, ' t B) Second Mortgage $200,000 @ 4.5%/30 yrs. $ 12,160 ;'a. ocr
Total Annual Debt Service $142,509 Lte-C ..tl
C) City TIF (Third Mortgage) $230,000 @ 1%/30 yrs.
Ute- ns.� ��. .x
- payments would be deferred until the earlier of sale, refinance or 30 years.Na �C
At that time all principal and accrued interest would be repaid. k...611_„,1.2-0,..
(5,Th
} D) MHFA/FHF (Fourth Mortgage) $290,000 @ 0%/30 years
- payments deferred until the earlier of sale, refinance, or 30 years.
E) FHLB/Holman Grant
These funds will either be structured as a grant or a non-recourse,
unsecured loan at 0% interest. Structuring depends on attorney's tax
opinion and investor's intentions. —to-
4) Development Fee/Construction Profit
Due to the various financing sources for this property, all development costs
must be cost certified by an independent 3rd-party accountant. Furthermore, we
have already made commitments to MHFA to put caps on construction profit,
•
overhead, general requirements, development fees and total soft costs to the
following levels:
A) Soft Costs:
Total soft costs may not exceed 20% of total development costs, or
$987,000 ($4,935,000 x 20%).
B) Construction Profit/Overhead/General Requirements:
Construction Profit, overhead and general requirements may not exceed
x 14% of the construction contract. General requirements is a job cost
C`.:Sj� J� billable to the project -- MSP has no profit center in this area. Typically
general requirements run approximately 6%,thus there is approximately 8%
left over for MSP profit & overhead, or approximately $175,000.
? t �
C) Combined Construction/Development/General Requirement Limitations
Combined development fees, construction profit, overhead and general
requirements may not exceed 16.7% of total development costs. However,
,\ when one takes into account that general requirements is not a profit
center, true profit & overhead amounts to approximately 14% of total
`� ' .\s`. development cost. Although we are not currently projecting this 14% level
n U> of profit, we are committing that profit will not exceed this level.
D) Development Risks/Guarantees..
I
MSP Real Estate is guaranteeing total construction costs, development
costs, project lease-up, and all operating deficits and tax credit guarantees.
IP If costs or deficits exceed budget, MSP is responsible for funding cost
overruns and operating deficits. Conversely, any cost savings and/or cash
flow are split between MSP and the investor, subject to cost certified limits
previously outlined.
5) Relocation
Our first proposal assumed that we would retain most residents, and thus
relocation would not be necessary. However, we have since learned that the
Federal Uniform Relocation Act would apply to this property, and thus
regardless of whether a resident stays or leaves, we would be responsible for
making up the difference between new higher rents and existing lower rents for
a period of 42 months. If a resident chooses to leave the property because of the
rent increases, we would also be responsible for moving costs and utility hook-up
charges. As such, we have prepared the following relocation budget assuming 10
residents will move out and 30 residents will stay:
Rent difference (40 units @ $100/month x 42 months) $168,000
Moving expenses/hook-up costs (10 units @ $1,500/unit) $15,000
Moving expenses within property (30 units @ $500/unit) $15,000
• Contingency $22,000
Total Budget $220,000
Our intent for this property has always been to build the highest quality property, while
minimizing the cost to the City. We believe that our building plans as well as our development
budget will accomplish that goal.
Hopefully these answers are responsive to the questions you have posed. Please feel free to
contact me at 337-5144 should you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Jeff Huggett
Vice President
MSP Real Estate, Inc.
0
Jet slccath.ltr
•
11 rubli
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mounds View Economic Development
Authority will hold a public hearing on Monday, July 28, 1997, at 8:00 p.m. at
Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, to
consider the sale of land located at 2625 Highway 10 for the purpose of a
redevelopment project for affordable housing. The property is legally described as
Lot 78 Spring Lake Park Hillview Addition, with a parcel identification number of 06-
30-23-44-0051.
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heard at
this meeting. If you are unable to attend the meeting but wish to comment, you may
submit a letter to Cathy Bennett, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. The
letter will be forwarded to the Mounds View Economic Development Authority.
The proposed terms and conditions of the sale are available for review at City
Hall. If you have any questions regarding this meeting please contact me at 717-
4002.
Cathy Bennett
Director of Economic Development
This notice published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press July18, 1997.
•
07/18/97 08:53 COMMUNITY PARTNERS INC. 4 16127843462 NO.193 P001
W
YCOMMUNITY PARTNERS
. ftz.ittrir.4‘N
INCORPOR A T ED
To:
CG - 2t/vitH Date: 1- I a - `►x
Pages: ? , including this cover sheet
Fax #• ( (sit ) 'ISS{ - 3 `( (.Z
From. 0 a ..c
Subject• 5 sl v v C c.�C� �3�,•.•o�s
COMMENTS:
f i6� ♦ cetl.urc iJs. CO T h . MeN8Pgj�` �h T 1Lc Iked 6.E1i I,
c., c c, CO'4s ,+cs 4 jeer `►c
4e 1-gnct-off ujCL.T C. t.v,C r' Tcto
t.,c5 T�► � tr G, t� rfuast�S 't � cT 4 C ?
In„
het i L, �t e 1 ► .,,, , ),.�,ti��, 'i a G C a-.t i ce. !
C4N.I`.� t !`1
�� ti•c�t., oi ► 4 It t^ thr h c0, t .
G ' " e M C G ( C r r Cv 4toiCACQ 4 / eVt �S
•
CENTRAL BLOCK BVIILDING
405 DIVISION STREET
NORTHFIELD,MN 55057-2019
FAX(507)645-6037
07/18/97 08:53 COMMUNITY PARTNERS INC. 4 16127843462 NO.193 P002
SILVER LAKE COMMONS PROJECT •
DATE: July 18, 1997
FROM: Dave Maroney
SUBJECT: TIF Request/Land Write-Down
The Developers have requested the following financial participation for the proposed Silver Lake
Commons Project:
1. Land write-down for the EDA owned land. The investment made by the EDA to
acquire and clear the site is estimated to be approximately$131,000. The
Developers have offered to acquire the property for$35,000. If the proposal is
accepted, the amount of City funded participation would be approximately
$96,000.
2. A$230,000 deferred loan payable the earlier of the date which sale of the
improved property occurs,the initial financing package is refinanced, or 30 years
from the date of closing. Interest is proposed to accrue at the rate of 1%per
annum. The loan would be secured by a third mortgage.
The proposed financial participation of the City of Mounds View totals$326,000 comprised of
land write-down($96,000)and tax increment financing($230,000).
At this writing,preliminary financing commitments for all of the proposed financial partners
have not been secured. Of particular concern is the status of the planned application to the
MHFA Family Housing Fund Program. The request is due on August 21, 1997 with a funding
decision expected in October. Without preliminary commitments, it is difficult to perform any
kind of conclusive financial analysis relating to the tax increment request. However,to keep the
review process moving, a conditional commitment is possible should the City wish to do so.
A conditional commitment should include the following minimum terms and conditions:
1. The actual dollar amount of any loan(s)by the City of Mounds View will not
exceed a total of$326,000. The actual amount and terms of participation will not
be finalized until and after letters of intent and preliminary commitments to
finance the proposed Silver Lake Commons Project are secured. The amount of
participation will be based upon the then identified financial need of the project to
a maximum of$326,000.
•
07/18/97 08:53 COMMUNITY PARTNERS INC. 4 16127643462 NO.193 P003
• July 18, 1997
Page 2
2. Presentation and acceptance of a qualified independent market study which
documents the need for the proposed project,acceptable rent levels and
anticipated lease-up schedule,
3. A more detailed relocation/displacement plan is prepared which more precisely
identifies the anticipated costs associated with this activity. The plan should be
prepared by a qualified third party that is experienced in relocation/displacement
activities and which reflects the existing tenant base of the Red Oak Apartments.
The Developers have chosen to pursue a number of financial partners for the Silver Lake
Commons Project. Consequently, it makes little sense for the City of Mounds View to offer an
unconditional commitment to finance without further assurance relating to"pending
commitments". Unless the City of Mounds View is prepared to offer unsecured grant financing
et an unspecified funding level, it seems prudent to limit the City's participation to a conditional
commitment if you believe that the project will benefit the community.
f
• 1313M
11•11 '141111111111w
Danzei6en PFapertieo, Management St Cortiutting
Proprop
•
Management
Information
nmwe
Lorie Danzeisen
President
Phone:612-552-8029
477 Mendota Road West Fac 612-552-7465
West St.Paul.MN 55118
• Danzeioen Pro pertieo, Management & CoKoulting
477 Mendota Road West • West St. Pau., MN 55118
612-552-8029 • fax: 612-552-7465
1
Our Track Record
I
20 Years Experience •
A Management of over 7000 Apartment Units.
Repositioned 17 distressed properties to make them financially sound.
A Developed management operational procedures that have been implemented on over
20,000 apartment units nationwide.
A Developed training programs to maximize site level operations addressing:
• Leasing &Marketing • Planning &Follow Through
• Personnel Selection&Supervision • Tracking & Analysis of Data
• Analyzing Market Conditions • Customer Service & Retention
• Budgeting &Planning • Income &Expense Control
• Routine &Preventative Maintenance • Multiple Site Management Skills
A Developed and implemented specialized management plans for non-traditional real
estate investments:
• Commercial Condos • Conversion Housin •
g
• Recreational Housing Facilities Management • Student/Recreational
A Development team participant for 1557new construction rental units in following capacities:
• Market&Feasibility Studies • Financial Planning & Forecast
• Public Relations For Municipal Development • Building Design
• Marketing, Leasing & Start Up V.unit layout & floor plan •
• Program Compliance Requirements `i•unit mix
J'features & packaging
IT cost review
A Supervised over $2,500,000.00 residential housing rehab and renovation plans.
A Operated property and maintenance company which was responsible for over 3,000
apartment units and 230,000 sq. ft. commercial property.
A Extensive experience with government subsidy programs including;Section 42,Section 8,
221D's, 236's, RAPs, BMIRs, Tax Credit, Bonds, and TIF's.
111
f
Portfolio Experience
I
110. Building Name Size Location Special Use
Russell Arms 98 Sauk Rapids, MN Sect. 8-Senior
Northwood Villas 48 Sauk Rapids, MN Sect. 8
I Crossroads Apartments 114 Waite Park,MN 221 D3
Anquishire Apartments 78 Waite Park, MN
Park Meadows 60 Waite Park, MN BMIR
IRosewood Estates 60 St Cloud,MN
J. Cedar Square East 360 St Cloud, MN
I River Place 48 Sauk Rapids,MN Sect.8
Glenwood Senior Housing 108 Glenwood,MN Sect. 8
Northwood Glencoe 96 Glencoe,MN 236 RAP
1 * Washburn Family Housing 160 Washburn,ND Subsidized
Northway Apartments 48 St. Cloud, MN
West Campus 192 St. Cloud,MN
J. Wannigin Apartments 207 Grand Rapids, MN
Worthington Student Housing 96 Worthington,MN
A
,l, iiises _218 r "*s` f ilver'GmvesI3eights,.a
J The Pines 112 Brainerd,MN
Grand Marais Family Housing 84 Grand Marais,MN Sect.8
le International Falls Family Housing 102 International Falls,MN Sect.8
Blue Earth Family Housing 96 Blue Earth, MN Sect. 8
I Campus East 48 St.Cloud,MN
Key Row 64 Morris,MN HUD 236
SunRise East 48 St.Cloud,MN
Mason City Housing 120 Mason City, IA Sect.8
Cedar Ponds 48 Apple Valley, MN
RiverSide Plaza 114 St.Cloud, MN Sect.8
LeSeur Family Housing 72 Le Seur, MN Sect. 8
Country Club Town Houses 64 St.Cloud,MN Cooperative
1 Parkview Terrace 114 St.Cloud,MN Sect. 8
J Clearwater Estates 156 St. Cloud,MN Sect. 8
Key Row 108 St.Cloud, MN Sect.8,Senior
!Stevens Place_,� _ _ __... ___... _-.___36 Minneapolis,MN
Cold Spring Family Housing 48 Cold Spring, MN 236,RAP
Germain Towers 56 St.Cloud,MN Sect.8,Senior
Summit House 98 Minneapolis,MN
.BriarcliffManor,....- . - 24_ Edina,MN
-Parkview Terrace 119 - Bloomington,MN
poir Park_.. .__ -__ _ 49 __ .- __ . . Bloomington,MN
1411 ; Cedars of St.Paul • • - 114 _ St.Paul,MN
* receiverships for property requiring repositioning in a market
V development team involvement
1
I e
_folio Experience (cont)
I
Building Name Size Location Special Use •
..,,7. Pine Tree Park 199 St.Paul,MN
" Johnson Parkway 84 St.Paul,MN
.. Calhoun Plaza 109 Minneapolis,MN
-•-.'.(Village on Woodlvnn 60 Maplewood,MN Tax Credit /iit. 444/
. * Canary Hill 90 Maplewood,MN '-/ ---'/7.E17
I r. (Cottages of Aspen 114 Oakdale,MN Tax Credit
..* Cities 94 - .. 184 Minneapolis,MN
* Connelly Estates 240 Burnsville,MN
I -* Charleswood 114 Burnsville,MN
* Fox Ridge 160 Eagan,MN- J2,\.-N 0 k e
-�!r The Hills 218 Inver Grove Heights,MN Low Income4TF : _sem-",
Minnehaha 89 Minneapolis,MN ' O
* Park Plaza 159 Minneapolis,MN
* Elm Creek Apartments 72 Champlin;MN Tax Credit
* Prairiewood Meadows 85 Fargo,ND Tax Credit
:.' West Virginian . 47 . - Richfield,MN --
I •Wilshire Woods . . .. 45 -- Minnetonka,MN p aT
1ummit Park-- -- - -- - r ' - 336. 336 .... Burnsville,MN arti ax e t_
' ' Towers of Galtier 361 ... - St.Paul,MN Bond,
l CreditsCr,Sdiect.8( 1)
Bryant Avenue Apartments 48 Minneapolis,MN--
Carriage House 164 Jacksonville, FL
I46,kottages of Vadnais Heights ._100 - Vadnais Heights,MN Tax Credit
c.k. efree Cottages L II St III _ 216 Maplewood,MN Tax Credit
l'Altraircliff Manor 70 Mahtomedi,MN Tax Credit
IBlaisdale Apartments 14 Minneapolis,MN
Ni Kimball Senior Housing 36 Kimball, MN Senior Market
I Phillips Redesign 88 Minneapolis,MN Sect. 8,Tax Credit,
`:-.i--4 HOME
J:IC illips Neighborhood 47 Minneapolis,MN Sect.8,Tax Credit,
I ,1, --..',.;.7
* Housing Trust RTC/AHDP
receiverships for property requiring repositioning in a market
V development team involvement
1 commercial experience
Building Name Location _ Size/Type
1 704 25th Ave St.Cloud, MN 30,000 sq.ft. Office
Market Square St.Cloud, MN 25,000 sq.ft. Retail
I Office In The Park St. Cloud, MN 75,000 sq.ft. Office (Leasing only)
Minnewawa Nissiwa, MN 42 Acre Resort
Bass Lake Park New Hope, MN 25-30,000 sq.ft. Office/Warehouse
IIndustry Park New Hope, MN 30-35,00 sq.ft. Office/Warehouse
1
Property Management
Experienced
III Experience you can Experienced, innovative management pays for itself by it's ability to
count on. produce positive results. Our ability to turn troubled properties into
profitable, high demand communities have earned us a reputation as
"problem solvers". We add value to property through maximized
rents, improved occupancy rates, reduced resident turnover, steady
rent collection, thorough maintenance programs and controlled
expenses.
Management Plans
Planning is the 1st We manage to a carefully thought out budget and written action plans,
step to success. managing expenses carefully. We continually monitor plans and make
adjustments where necessary to insure attainment of goals.
Property Inspections
We don't like Before we acquire a property,we bring in a team of experts to carefully
surprises. analyze every aspect of a property's physical condition as well as it's
position in a marketplace. We continue formal inspection throughout •
our management to maintain the property's value and insure customer
• and client satisfaction.
Construction/Maintenance Supervision
Our attention to We are experienced in overseeing large and small renovation projects.
detail insures Our team of experts can develop maintenance programs designed to
positive results. improve, preserve and maintain a property.
Marketing Programs
There's more to With our Multi-Market experience we know how to analyze a market,
leasing than filling develop strategies and implement the latest marketing techniques to
empty spaces. achieve the highest possible income for a property.
Resident Retention
Keeping quality The only acceptable reasons for loosing a good resident is through the
residents is more purchase of a home,out-growing a units' capacity or relocation to a new
important then Q�, We pay careful attention to the needs and desires of good resi dents
attracting new 1 1_ 1......_.....3 1.. 1�....,.. +h ;,-, r iIv rnr,,,,,H ,
aria worx iiarua o .eep u mil L ll L .�ul pro ... ie..v.
ones.
Training
We don't just train, Our managers are trained to manage their properties as a business,
0 We build TEAMS. according to written plans and specific objectives.
I .
Property Management
i
Consulting Services
IAttention to detail We are a resource to many clients from the time a property is considered
leaves nothing to for purchase, throughout it's ongoing operations, through it's
chance! disposition.
I
Reporting and Accounting
We help you hold The best leasing, training, ret^ration and management programs are
us accountable. futile if they don't produce successful results. Our accounting and
reporting systems are tailored to give you the information you need,in
an easy to understand format so you can easily monitor the performance
of your property.
IResults Oriented
We understand the challenges and frustrations of owning rental
I Difference!The Dcen property and put our experience to work for you. We are committed
e
to preparing, planning, implementing and monitoring specific plans
designed to obtain satisfying results in real estate investment.
i .
, _ _ ,
i _
_ dp._
_ ,
_ _ ___ y,
,.. . ....,,,t
1 , . ,,i .., _
uP
i .......
a r •
•
I
. .
1
•
Training Programs
I
IDThe success of an organization will be directly determined by the talent of its work-
force. In this competitive and ever-changing marketplace, the ability to build and
maintain a high performance employee team is critical.
Whether it is training for property managers, site managers, caretakers, or maintenance
crews, our training programs offer a practical, "nuts and bolts" approach to developing
skills and increasing motivation.
In addition to our core programs, we also offer the flexibility to customize training to
support your organization's unique policies and practices. Examples of the kinds of
training programs we can offer include:
• marketing (induding how to write and implement marketing plans)
9
• how to attract, hire, supervise and coach employees
• how to create a working environment that enables employees to be successful
1
• improving relationships between building staff and residents
• on-site and property management procedures (including budgeting, how to control
expenses, how to improve rental collections)
ill • multiple-site management skills
• delegation and time management strategies and techniques
►.1
11111
Core Program Training
I
o be effective in the industry, you need a variety of skills & talents, as well all,T being
b open to new ideas and solutions to ongoing issues.
Our seminars are created to help maximize the individual skill level as well as
discovering new techniques which can help them address problems inherent to the
industry.
Our seminar titles include:
1. How To's of Relationship Building
2. ProgramYourself Yoursel or Success
3. Unleashing Your Potential
4. Professional Leasing Techniques &Methods
5. Handling Conflict
•
6. Building Customer Loyalty
7. Marketing Ideas for a Thin Budget
8. Team Building (various topics) 11110
9. The Hiring & Supervising Process
10. Finding Extra Time
11. Keeping All the Plates Spinning
(Effectively Managing Yourself& Others)
12. Understanding Personality Traits
We also offer the flexibility to customize training to support your organization's unique
policies and practices.
•
Consulting Services
• Whether it is serving in an advisory capacity to you or your management staff,
completing short-term assignments, or working on special, customized projects,
we can help you leverage your staff's talent. Examples of consulting services provided to
our clients have included:
°i Development of:
- employee and operations manuals
- new employee orientation programs
- actions plans and programs for marketing, resident retention, and employee
relations
- advertising & public relations campaigns
- management and employee training resources
• Short-term management of staffs and operations for new properties
• Design consultants for new building development
• Market research and feasibility studies
O Lobbying at city and state levels
• Special events planning and implementation
O Serving in an advisory capacity to owners and managers in such areas as:
- personnel - attracting good employees, hiring, coaching, giving performance feed-
back, dealing with performance problems,building employee teams, staff training
- strengthening resident relations, building loyalty
- entering new markets and recapturing lost markets
- turn-around of distressed properties / preserving and enhancing property values
- building networks between independent property owners and service providers
111 •
4
7 '
References
facpu41-4
1 ' _
David H. Hesley i0�;'v'�
2607 White Bear Avenue
Maplewood, MN 55109
612-770-7687 (office)
Patricia Mogren
Mogren Investments
1801 Gervais Ave.
Maplewood, MN 55109
612-770-7687 (office)
Dr. Cliff Leach
7497 99th St. Court North
White Bear Lake, MN 55428
612-426-5759 (home)
Dick Ward 410
The Ackerberg Group
3100 West Lake Street- Suite 100
Minneapolis, MN 55416
612-924-6481
C/4)-1-1
Harvey Schmidt 0
Catholic Charities
1252 - 32nd Avenue No. tUu .i
POBox 1416 .L,cY'
St. Cloud, MN 56302
320-924-6481
Cy).)
•Ityl`m'N
•
3y , 31 '/i/ fall sivre-
s/
•
Client/Customer Comments
„
My compliments to you on the great job you have done turning around Pine Tree Park
Apartments! On behalf on my constituents and the City of St. Paul, thank you - we
appreciate your good work!"
James Scheibel, Mayor
"Our new building is better than anticipated because of your team. The experience that you
contribute proved to be invaluable and saved us thousands of dollars."
David Hesley
Owner/Developer
"Your company's sincere, honest and professional approach has made a great difference...
Your people have always come through for me."
Michael R. Hoffman
Owner/Investor
"Thank you for the tremendous job you did on filling our new building. Because of your
experienced and professional team, we opened with 94% occupancy which put us months
ahead of our goals. You are all winners in my book!"
Dr. Cliff Leach
Owner/Developer
"I want to let you know how much I enjoy working with your staff, the entire experience
with your company has been nothing but professional and first class... We are very
grateful."
Rob Lipner
Owner/Investor
•
I
Lorre Danzeisen
i
orie Danzeisen, owner of DPMC, has served in the property management industry(
JLi since 1977. Her career has included hands-on experience in all aspects of property
management(from cost accounting, caretaking,site management,property management,
executive roles, and small business ownership).
ILorie is experienced in lobbying at both city and state levels for landlords interests and has
personally managed over 7000 units. She has worked within diverse markets: commercial,
Iresidential(i.e. senior housing, student housing,low income,inner city,and hi-rise),retail,
and recreational properties.
JA partial list of some of the organizations Lorie has worked with include:Minnesota Multi
Housing Association, The Griffin Companies, Homecraft Builders, Brutger Companies, i
ICy Kuefler Property Management, Beumer Properties & Development.
In addition, Lorie has served as Officer and Director for the Minnesota Multi Housing
I Association,is a Certified Trainer for the National Apartment Association and the National
Multi Housing Council, and is active in her community and donates time as a mentor in
the Multi Housing Industry.
I
I
I .
I
1
fl: iiii'llidiij,,itc.ilufae/
a I
,,,,,,,. .
-c,twi
cb ,,,o, III
0 Staff Memo
To: Economic Development Commission Members
From: Cathy Bennett, Director of Economic Development
Date: July 17, 1997
Subject: Discussion of Loan Program for Rehabilitation of Manufactured
(5.B.) Homes
Summary:
The EDC is being asked to evaluate the possibility of using tax increment funds to
assist residents in the rehabilitation of homes located in the manufactured home
parks.
The Situation:
Currently, owners of manufactured homes are constructing their own additions.
0 State law requires that additions must be prefabricated. The additions that are being
built are now is disrepair. They have leaks with faulty construction which create an
unsafe health environment such as molding and insects. The City has the authority to
require the owners to tear down these additions since they were not constructed per
State building code. The problem is that the people who own the homes are not
able to afford the prefabricated additions to replace the defective ones but they still
desperately need the living space.
Possible Solution:
Staff though that we could provide a loan to the owners for the prefabricated
additions to replace the ones that are a health hazard and need to be removed. The
loan could be forgivable after a number of years or payment due upon sale of the
home. We could also require that the recipient of the loan be required to attend a
property management class to help them self police problems that arise within these
manufactured home parks. The questions arise when we begin to look at what type
of security we would be able to have on the loan. One possibility is to put a lien on
the property for the value of the loan. Of course we would need to be assured that
the value of the manufactured home at least is equal to loan amount. Another
question would be the administration of the loan?
The Building Inspector, Rick Jarson, will be available to address the situation and
• provide information regarding the number of current cases that would qualify and
how much a typical prefab addition would cost.
f
• Staff Memo
To: Economic Development Commission Members
From: Cathy Bennett, Director of Economic Development
Date: July 17, 1997
Subject: Information regarding Highway 10 Design Theme RFP
(5.C.)
Community Development Director Pam Sheldon gained approval from the EDA to
send out an RFP to consulting firms to assist with developing a design theme for
Highway 10. Because we have several large developments moving though the
development review process, it is important that we develop a theme for landscaping,
lighting, signage, etc. that can be incorporated into these projects.
We are proposing that the EDC and Planning Commission hold a joint meeting on
August 13th to interview proposals received for development of the design theme. I
have attached a copy of the proposal for your review and can answer any questions
you may have as part of this agenda item.
•
Attachment: Request for Proposal for Professional Services
•
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
HIGHWAY 10 DESIGN THEME
REQUEST:
The City of Mounds View's Economic Development Authority (EDA) is seeking proposals
from qualified consultants to work with City Staff, the Planning Commission and Economic
Development Commission to prepare a design theme for the Highway 10 redevelopment
corridor between Edgewood Drive and Silver Lake Road, located in the City of Mounds
View.
GOAL OF PROJECT:
The goal of this project is to develop 2-3 design alternatives which would identify the area
between Edgewood Drive and Silver Lake Road on Highway 10 as the Mounds View City
Center, i.e. a focal point of community activity and the City's commercial core. The City is
seeking to transform Highway 10 corridor into a more unified, attractive corridor that
conveys a sense of place and contributes to the overall community fabric. Techniques could
include an overall scheme for landscaping, lighting, signage, and fencing, and methods for
marking the gateway points into this area (Edgewood Drive and Silver Lake Road.) The
design theme would be implemented along the parcels fronting on Highway 10, and attention •
needs to be given to existing land use,property conditions, natural features, and the amount
of land available for implementing a design theme. Use of a portion of the Highway 10
right-of-way is a possibility but not guaranteed. The City is seeking recommendations on
whether the design approach should be formal or informal in nature, given the character of
the larger community. The City also desires to utilize wherever possible natural features
within the corridor such as wetlands and woodlands.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Mounds View is located 10 miles north of Minneapolis and St. Paul directly west
of Interstate 35W on Highway 10. Mounds View is in the northwest corner of Ramsey
County and is bordered by the communities of New Brighton, Arden Hills, Fridley, Blaine,
Shoreview and Spring Lake Park.
Mounds View has a population of 13,000 people and has grown from a bedroom community
to a bustling suburb with diverse residential neighborhoods and three quality business parks.
The Mounds View City Council has directed that high priority be given to the Highway 10
corridor as the major thoroughfare in Mounds View, the focal point of the City's commercial
zoning and as having considerable potential for strengthening the City's economic base. It is
also recognized that Highway 10 has a significant impact on the liveability of Mounds View
and how the community is perceived.
On March 17, 1997, the •
City Council discussed community and economic development
issues in Mounds View with staff. One of the major issues discussed was the importance of
r
• City of Mounds View - Request for Proposals
Highway 10 Design Theme
July 7, 1997
Page 2
the Highway 10 corridor. At that time, the City Council indicated that Highway 10 should
be given a high priority, with immediate attention given to land use and design issues.
Between December, 1996 and now, the City has received three major development proposals
along the Highway 10 corridor:
■ O'Neil Property, which has received PUD zoning approval for a 16-screen movie
theater, three office buildings and two restaurant sites
• D.W. Jones Property, which has received PUD zoning approval for an 83-unit senior
citizen housing development, gas station/convenience market/fast food restaurant/car
wash, and office buildings and/or sit-down restaurant.
• Silver Lake Commons, which is under review and includes a major renovation of the
Red Oak Apartments and construction of 16 new rental townhomes
In addition, Mounds View was one of four cities which participated in a design course
sponsored by the University of Minnesota. The issue selected for Mounds View for study
was the Highway 10 corridor. One of the outcomes of this course was a sketch plan for the
development of a ring road which would define the City's commercial core centered on
• Highway 10. It also resulted in discussions about the need to develop a stronger sense of
place within this core or"heart" of Mounds View, and the need to tame Highway 10. At
present, Highway 10 tends to act as a barrier and a route through the City rather than a stage
for presenting the community of Mounds View.
The City Council acting as the Economic Development Authority authorized this request for
proposals for a design theme in order to find ways to overcome the current state of the
Highway 10 corridor. It is the City's desire to create a more unified, attractive image for the
City, to encourage a more coherent commercial district, and to create a City Center which
would serve as a community focal point. Establishing a more coordinated approach to
landscaping, signage, lighting and fencing, and establishing guidelines for building design
and property appearance along Highway 10 would encourage higher quality development
and strengthen the City's economic base. The design theme would also include proposed
designs for the gateway points at Edgewood Drive and Silver Lake Road. These design
elements would create a place which would attract businesses and customers, and which
would present Mounds View as an attractive, prosperous community. It is also important
that a design theme established as a reference point in working with private developers along
Highway 10 on their site and landscaping plans.
PROJECT AREA:
The project area includes the Highway 10 corridor between its intersections with Silver Lake
• Road and County Road H2. (The City is seeking to realign Edgewood Drive so it will
intersect Highway 10 at right angles approximately half way between Long Lake Road and
County Road H2. It is hoped that approval will be obtained from MnDOT for a full-
City of Mounds View- Request for Proposals 411)Highway 10 Design Theme
July 7, 1997
Page 3
movement, signalized intersection at this point, and the existing uncontrolled full-movement
intersection at Edgewood Drive will be abandoned. If this is accomplished, Edgewood
would become the gateway to the Mounds View City Center.) The length of this stretch of
Highway 10 is approximately one mile. The project area would include the parcels fronting
Highway 10 and the highway right-of-way itself.
SCOPE OF PROJECT:
The scope of the project would include the following:
1. Visual evaluation of conditions on properties fronting Highway 10 for purposes of
assessing the feasibility of implementing a design theme and the type of theme which
would be appropriate. Attention would be given to type of land use,property
condition, natural features, and amount of land available for implementing a design
theme. For example, notations would be made where existing improvements such as
buildings and parking lots are situated relative to the Highway right-of-way line. The
area to be assessed would be the north and south sides of Highway 10 between
County Road H2 to Silver Lake Road. Notations on constraints to the
implementation of a design theme should be included. The information from the •
visual evaluation would be mapped or otherwise synthesized.
An exacting study is not expected. The City would make available development
plans on file with the City, aerial photographs, drawings showing approximate
location of buildings and structures from Ramsey County. The idea is to identify
where there are none to minor to severe limitations on fitting design improvements,
and to give consideration to adjacent site conditions in developing the design theme.
2. Tour of the City to assess its general character and the impact of the Highway 10
corridor. Review of the sketch plan for the Ring Road concept developed during the
University of Minnesota design course.
3. Review of the active development plans for sites in the Highway 10 corridor to
assess and make recommendations on how the design theme could be coordinated
with these development plans.
4. Preparation of two or three concept plans for a design theme along Highway 10, with
attention to specific conditions in the corridor and illustrating both a formal and
informal treatment for the corridor. The design theme should include proposals for
landscaping, lighting, signage, fencing, and street furniture as deemed appropriate by
the designer. A suggested color scheme should be included. The design theme
should also include details showing how the gateways at Silver Lake Road and •
Edgewood Drive, and the major intersections at Long Lake Road and County Road I
would be treated.
City of Mounds View - Request for Proposals
• Highway 10 Design Theme
July 7, 1997
Page 4
5. Perspective renderings or simulations of key locations in the Highway 10 corridor to
illustrate the visual impact of the design theme.
6. Attendance at least one meeting with the Planning Commission and Economic
Development Commission, and one meeting with the Economic Development
Authority to present and discuss the design theme alternatives. Attendance at one
community forum on the design theme.
PROJECT BUDGET:
The budget for this project is not to exceed$10,000.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
1. Description of firm's expertise and qualifications for the study.
111 2. Description and location of comparable studies completed or in progress.
3. List of key staff members that would be involved in the study. Include their roles,
background and experience.
4. Proposed scope of work.
5. Proposed work schedule to include completion date.
6. Proposed detailed budget to complete the study.
7. Description of final documents completed as part of study.
Submit complete proposal no later than August 1, 1997 to:
Pamela Sheldon OR Cathy Bennett
Community Development Director Economic Development Director
City of Mounds View City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10 2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112 Mounds View, MN 55112
612-717-4000 612-717-4000
612-784-3462 (FAX) 612-784-3462 (FAX)
• REVIEW PROCESS:
City of Mounds View- Request for Proposals •
Highway 10 Design Theme
July 7, 1997
Page 5
Submittal Deadline August 1, 1997
EDC/Planning Commission Review/Interviews August 13, 1997
Recommendation to EDA August 18, 1997
EDA Selection of Firm August 18, 1997
Contract Executed August 25, 1997
N:\DATA\USERS\PAMS\SHARE\SPECPROJ\SP043.97\HWY l ODES.RFP
•
•
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
IIICITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Agenda Meeting
April 2, 1997
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
(Held at the Bel Rae Community Center, 5394 Edgewood Drive)
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Peterson at 10:30 p.m. (immediately
following the regular meeting).
2. Roll Call
Members present: Commissioners, Johnston, Obert, Miller, Brasaemle,
Stevenson and Chair Peterson (Commissioner Brooks was in attendance at the
Regular Meeting and left at 10:10 p.m., prior to the beginning of the Special
Agenda Meeting.)
• Also Present: Community Development Director Sheldon, Planning Associate
Ericson, and Council Liaison Koopmeiners.
Index to Minutes Page
Planning Case No. 471-97, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning
001.
To PUD For Movie Theater and Office Buildings, 2340 Highway 10 2
•
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Special Agenda Meeting Page 2
3.
Planning Case No. 471-97
2430 Highway 10
Applicant: Anthony Properties Management, Inc.
Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to
Mixed Use PUD Allowing Commercial and Office Uses, and Rezoning from B-1 and R-2 to
PUD to Allow Development of a 16-Screen Movie Theater and Three 11,000 Square Foot
Office Buildings.
Mr. Wendell Smith, representing the applicant, Anthony Properties Management,
Inc., was present.
Director Sheldon explained that, since the last meeting, further research had
been done on issues that the Planning Commission brought up and a report was
provided to the Planning Commission that divided the issues into two groups: 1)
those issues that had been more or less addressed, and 2) those issues that
were still the subject of discussion. The issues that Staff felt had been resolved
were the wetland itself and that no construction would occur in it, the proposed
drainage system and the ability of the drainage system to filter the water before
it entered the wetland and its capacity for the amount of water that would occur.
The fact that it was our City Engineer's opinion that there would be no adverse
affect on the existing properties around the site and the existing flooding
problems on the property would not be made worse. The soil conditions were
suitable for development, the vegetation and landscaping proposed would
preserve the tree cover and the specific landscape plan for the developed area I--
would come in at the next stage. She also discussed the viability of the .
proposed office space, economic impact of the project, public safety and the
Fire Marshal's comments. She indicated the Fire Marshal would require a 56
foot wide access and that an emergency access be available near Donatelle's.
She added that landscaping and screening met the requirements of the Code as
did setbacks, building heights and other applicable zoning issues.
Director Sheldon continued with her Staff Report addressing the unresolved
items. She indicated the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan was inconsistent with the
current zoning and asked if it should be changed. Staffs view was that the
proposed designation was more appropriate for this site than either the adopted
designation or the current zoning, if it is the City's desire to develop the
commercial potential of the Highway 10 corridor and add to its tax base. Director
Sheldon continued by asking if adequate measures had been taken to provide the •
necessary buffer to the single family neighborhood. She went on to address the
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Special Agenda Meeting Page 3
i
traffic study and indicated that there is a supplemental study to what had already
been done and that the information would be available on April 16th. The study
would include what happens during theater peak time and what other land uses
would generate for traffic. She further addressed the parking issues as outlined in
the staff report. Copies of the Staff Report were distributed to the audience.
Tom Emster, 2504 County Road H2, inquired why the specific two theaters were
chosen for the report. Mr. Wendell Smith responded by saying that they are trying
to present as much information as possible so that everyone can make an
objective decision. He indicated that he will do counts this weekend at area
theaters if needed.
Mr. Smith continued by stating that requiring them to be under the 1:4 ratio for
parking requirements may be overkill and asked that the Commission not
concentrate on the worst possible scenario and to look at all the information for an
objective decision.
Chair Peterson asked if the study areas had good public transportation available.
Mr. Smith was not quite sure but indicated that he could find that out. From a
• conceptual standpoint, Mr. Smith indicated that they could meet the 1:4 ratio.
Tom Emster, 2504 County Road H2, expressed his concern with too much paving
for environmental reasons.
Mr. Smith went on to discuss the nature of small screens and their turnover rate
and added that the profits in the theater business were the concessions and that
they are very important to the viability of the theater. Commissioner Stevenson
added that the White Bear Township theaters were not a good example because
they do a poor job of staggering movie start times. He expressed that he would like
assurances that these staggered times will take place. Commissioner Brasaemie
added that traffic concerns are a result of grouped start times. A resident raised a
concern that we wouldn't want the times too staggered in case the group we were
with would like to see different movies.
Director Sheldon asked the Planning Commission for guidance regarding the
County Road H2 buffer issue, whether it should be left in its natural state, add
things to it, or change it into a more manicured landscape buffer. She asked what
would happen if the office buildings are not built right away and should the trees be
left until the office buildings are started. Director Sheldon continued her discussion
addressing encroachment into the wetland buffer and reported that the project
encroaches into six percent of the wetland buffer area.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Special Agenda Meeting Page 411111
Director Sheldon informed the Commission that she had met with principals from
Irondale, Edgewood, Sunnyside, and Pinewood Schools. She summarized that the
overall opinion was that the theaters would have no appreciable affect in terms of
skipping school. She reported that the principal of Irondale commented that high
school students are mobile and some of them do skip school but the amount that
students skip is minimal and he did not feel that a theater in the community would
cause more children to skip school. The principal at Edgewood School felt that
there would be a negligible affect on truancy. She reported that if a child is a
chronic truant, it will not make a difference and there are other reasons for it. Ms.
Sheldon also reported that the principal felt, at the appropriate time, that it would be
a good thing for children to have a constructive place to go in the community. Ms.
Sheldon reported that the Pinewood Principal felt that it would not cause additional
truancy and that they saw potential for working with the theater to sometimes use
the facility for emergencies (placing children temporarily in cold weather in case of
a gas line break, etc.). She also felt that the theater management could cooperate
with the schools to find out if they did have an occasional child show up and call
the school to inform them. She advised them that the principal at Sunnyside
thought the theater was too distant to have any impact.
Mr. Wendell Smith commented that most theaters work with school districts for 411
special showings.
Ms. Sheldon continued with her review of the Staff Report. She mentioned that the
Economic Development Commission passed resolution supporting the
development of the theaters.
Ms. Sheldon added that she received a letter from Dana Mandoza, 2633 Clearview
Avenue, who was unable to attend the meeting this evening but was at the last
meeting. In the letter, he expressed that he was opposed to the project and
wanted the Planning Commission to give particular attention. She also distributed
a draft example of a PUD document for this project.
Commissioner Brasaemle inquired if there had been any significant changes
since the last meeting as far as design or concept? Mr. Smith responded that
there had been no changes.
The Planning Commission opened the floor to comments from the audience.
Tom Emster, 2504 County Road H2, inquired that if a sidewalk was installed
along County Road H2, would the developer pay for it. Director Sheldon
•
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
• Special Agenda Meeting Page 5
responded by saying that the sidewalk was an idea that Staff had suggested in
case the new traffic study shows higher traffic levels on County Road H2.
Discussion ensued regarding the merits of traffic paths and which route was faster.
Commissioner Brasaemie commented that when reconstruction of County Road H2
takes place, more than likely a sidewalk would be included in that reconstruction. •
Mr. Smith commented that he had traveled the routes by vehicle and found that it is
faster to make a u-turn at Edgewood Drive rather than choosing to go around the
property on County Road H2 to Long Lake Road.
Mr. Smith reminded the Commission that they are still working with MnDOT on
getting an access and a traffic signal. A member of the audience raised a concern
about MnDOT posting °no u-tum" signs. Mr. Smith indicated that they would have
a written agreement with MnDOT as part of the development stage.
Sandy Simmons, 5041 Edgewood Drive, expressed her desire that the office
building be built at the same time as the theaters to provide a buffer. Mr. Smith
indicated that Mr. Jay Anthony will not guarantee that he would build the office
buildings until there is a market for them. He added that Mr. Anthony has agreed
• to leave the area wooded. Mr. Smith also said that the office buildings are the
profit center and therefore Mr. Anthony has great motivation to market them.
A resident raised some concern with the cleanliness of some of the restaurants in
Mounds View and that they should be inspected. She was informed that the
county performs the health inspections for the restaurants.
A resident asked if the service road would be connecting the restaurant and the
theaters. Director Sheldon indicated that this may be difficult since the restaurant
site is separated by the wetland but perhaps with mitigation it could be
accomplished.
Commissioner Johnston requested the sizes of the restaurant sites and the
square footages of the proposed restaurants. Mr. Smith indicated that Parcel A is
2.79 acres and Parcel B is 1.54 acres. He indicated that the sizes of the
restaurants would be to Code.
Sandy Simmons, 5041 Edgewood Drive, expressed her concern regarding
emergency access off site for emergency vehicles. Director Sheldon indicated that
the Fire Department has suggested that an access near Donatelle's be installed
but that it could be gated for emergency access only.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Special Agenda Meeting Page 6411
Commissioner Miller inquired if there would be access to the theater parking from
Donatelle's. Mr. Smith indicated that they are very open to the idea, either by
walkway or vehicle, and indicated that he has talked with Mr. Donatelle who is also
open to the idea.
Tom Emster, 2504 County Road H2, commented that this site plan is the best •
possible for this particular use and does not want the site plan modified from what
had been presented.
Chair Peterson commented that the Police Department has recommended that the
City try to get a full signalized intersection and perhaps realign Edgewood Drive to
join the site at a 90 degree angle. Mr. Smith added that the study would probably
indicate that the project could be done without a signal. However, they would
prefer to have one installed. He added that they need the City to work with MnDOT
but that they need a decision sooner from the City so that they can move forward
with the development stage in order to proceed in working with MnDOT.
A resident indicated that he likes the theater project, but does not like the traffic
situation.
Chair Peterson suggested that they go over the issues that still need discussion.
They commented that the Comprensive Plan is out-of-date and wondered if it
should be amended. He indicated that he does not think we could do much better
than a PUD for the site. Commissioner Stevenson commented that he has been
on the Highway 10 Task Force for the last five years and they saw the only
development for this site is PUD because of the mix of zones. He added that the
Comp Plan needs to be redone.
Tom Emster, 2504 County Road H2, indicated that he has looked at the old Comp
Plan and it did suggest that the area wasn't to be high impact development.
Commissioner Brasaemle added that certainly a PUD will give the City more
control as far as development. Commissioner Obert asked what happens when
the Comp Plan is redone. Would they take into account the possibilty for rezoning
the property and would it remain the current zoning even if it is developed as a
PUD? He also inquired ed if it is approved as a PUD, would it be coordinated lated it lto the
revised Comp Plan as such? Director Sheldon responded by saying that the
existing zoning and the Comp Plan do not match. The Planning Commission could
proceed to make a recommendation on the zoning alone and not touch the Comp
Plan. She added that what regulates the use of the parcel is the zoning and
Minnesota does not have a requirement that you have to have consistency
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Special Agenda Meeting Page 7
between your Comp Plan and your zoning. The zoning could be changed to
accommodate the project and it would still not match the Comp Plan. She is not,
however, advising that be done. She expressed that she thought the Comp Plan
that now indicates residential is different enough from the existing and proposed
zoning, and that we should finally make a decision regarding what the Comp Plan
should say. Commissioner Obert asked if the Commission proceeded with the
applicant's PUD proposal, would it then be done. Director Sheldon indicated that
the property would no longer be vacant and would not be debatable. She added
that the state law states that zoning takes precedent over comp plans when they
are different. She commented that it would be helpful to Staff if they had input on
whether or not the Commission felt that there was some room on this parcel for
commercial activity. The Planning Commission agreed that the Comp Plan should
be changed and that rezoning to a PUD could be used as a tool to control and limit
negative impact for the property.
The Commission briefly discussed the need for signalization and to align Edgewood
Drive with the site. The Planning Commission was not opposed to this. Mr. Smith
asked that the Planning Commission make a decision on their propsal prior to
receiving a decision from MnDOT. Commissioner Brasaemle requested that they
• receive some assurance from MnDOT that if this proposal went through, the City
would continue working to get the signal put it in. Mr. Smith brought up the
resolution from EDC reminding the Commission that the EDC recommended
approval of the project. However, they wanted the City to work with the Developer
to seek a signal and access.
Parking, cross-easements, landscaping and the buffer between the residents on
County Road H2 were briefly discussed. Mr. Emster expressed some of the
concerns of the residents on County Road H2 about screening, the overall
landscaping, and the appearance of the proposed fence. He commented that the
residents wanted to keep property values as high as possible. Mr. Smith replied
that the City would control the fence design during the development stage.
Commissioner Brasaemle added that the residents would have an opportunity to
comment at the Development stage. Director Sheldon advised the Planning
Commission that they could defer the landscaping issue and meet with the
neighborhood to come up with the most acceptable combination.
A resident inquired if the homes along County Road H2 that were purchased by Jay
Anthony would be rezoned. The Commission responded that they would remain
residential.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Special Agenda Meeting Page 8
The Commission went on to briefly discuss the wetland buffer and encroachment of
the project into the buffer and they indicated that this is not an issue.
Chair Peterson inquired about reconstruction of County Road H2 if necessary.
Director Sheldon responded that they do not expect that the level of traffic would
trigger reconstruction. A resident expressed his concern with paying for
reconstruction due to increased traffic flows for this type of project. Director
Sheldon informed the Commission that there are plans for County Road H2 to be
reconstructed in the year 2000.
The Commission talked briefly about installing a sidewalk on County Road H2 if the
increased traffic, as a result of this project, posed a safety risk to pedestrians, but
agreed that the impact would probably be insignificant. They continued with their
discussion regarding sidewalks along Highway 10, trail ways, and installing a
boardwalk around the wetland. Mr. Smith commented that Mr. Jay Anthony
provided a letter to the City indicating that he is willing to work with the City
regarding trails and walkways. Director Sheldon advised the Commission that the
City has existing wetland credits from the golf course construction that possibly
could be used if a walkway or boardwalk infringed into the wetland, but they would •
need to find out if this project would be a priority use for the credits.
The Commission decided that the signage issue would be dealt with at a later date.
Mr. Smith reassured them that they will meet the sign criteria and added that they
are planning to install a monument sign with a reader board showing movies and
starting times.
Chair Peterson concluded that the Planning Commission is in favor of what has
been presented but that no action would be taken this evening since it was a
discussion meeting. He asked the Commission what was their general feeling and
direction of this project.
Mr. Smith asked if the Commission could take a straw vote so that he has an idea
of their feeling regarding the project. Other than traffic concerns that need to be
worked out and given other potential uses for the site, all Commissioners
expressed that they are in favor of the project.
•
• Apel 2, 1997
Mounds View Planning Commission Page 9
Special Agenda Meeting
4. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting
adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
PlAIWAL \f/itt`(LIIA-7
Pamela
Sheldon
Community Development Director
•
•
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
IIICITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 2, 1997
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
(Held at the Bel Rae Community Center, 5394 Edgewood Drive)
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Members present: Commissioners Brooks, Johnston, Obert, Miller, Brasaemle,
Stevenson and Chair Peterson. (Commissioner Brooks left at 10:10 p.m.)
Also Present: Community Development Director Sheldon, Planning Associate
Ericson, Council Liaison Koopmeiners and Recording Secretary Benesch.
III
3. Approval of Minutes: March 5, 1997
Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve the minutes of March 5, 1997.
Motion Carried: 7 ayes, 0 nays
4. Citizen Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
There were no citizens requests or comments from the floor.
Index to Minutes =` yb
Planning Case No. 472-97, Conditional Use Permit for Spot's Quick Lube,
le22975 Highway 10
Planning Case No. 477-97, Rezoning for D. W. Jones, Inc. for a
Planned Unit Development, Silver Lake Road & Highway 10 4
•
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 •
Regular Meeting Page 2
5.
Planning Case No. 472-97
2975 Highway 10
Applicant: Spots Quick Lube
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a car maintenance facility.
The applicant, Ron Ostrander General Manager of Spot's Quick Lube, was
present.
Planning Associate Ericson informed the Commission that the applicant has
provided Staff with an updated site/drainage/landscape/sign plan since their last
meeting. He added that the applicant brought in another revised lighting plan that
day that addresses a couple of concerns that Staff had. Mr. Ericson distributed to
the Planning Commission a copy of a photometric analysis of the site and briefly
discussed the revisions to the Plan.
Mr. Ericson thoroughly reviewed the Staff Report dated April 2, 1997, regarding this •
item. He noted that the City Forester had made some changes to the landscape
plan.
Mr. Ericson informed the Commission that Staff is recommending approval of
Resolution No. 500-97 with stipulations.
Commissioner Johnston asked for clarification on the lighting that is proposed.
Director Sheldon offered some background regarding the lighting and explained
what the Code currently requires. She explained that some of the photometric
readings they are receiving are a little high near the property line and suggested
that the applicant rerun the numbers using the heights and wattages that Staff had
suggested. Commissioner Miller asked if there were restrictions as to when the
lights had to be turned off on the site. Director Sheldon did not recall that there
were any conditions in the resolution but that it could be added. Director Sheldon
indicated that a main concern was wattage and spillage of lighting into the
residential areas.
a
Ron Ostrander explained that they decided to go to the higher wattage lighting ,
because Mr. Ericson had initially asked that they reduce the number of light
standards. Mr. Ostrander indicated that he would run the numbers again if
necessary. He added that he has been dealing with a couple of lighting designers
on this issue to find a way to avoid spillage into the street and avoid offending any •
neighbors.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 3
•
Commissioner Brasaemle requested that the lighting plan be clarified since it did
not coincide with the description that Mr. Ostrander was giving. Mr. Ostrander
explained that he just came from the lighting designer and had not had a chance to
review the plan. He explained that the light pole that Commissioner Brasaemle
was referring to is intended to be a 400 watt bulb not a 1000 watt bulb as indicated
on the plan. Mr. Ostrander requested that the pole sign near Highway 10 be left
illuminated at all times. He also asked that the back side of his building be allowed
to stay lit for security purpose. He indicated that the parking lot lights would be
turned off when the business is dosed.
Commissioner Miller asked about the directional signs and Mr. Ostrander
indicated that these signs will not be lit.
Commissioner Brooks asked what types of auto repair activity would be taking
place. Mr. Ostrander indicated that there would be no auto repair, only auto
maintenance such as oil changes, transmission services, fluid exchanges, wiper
blade changes, etc. Commissioner Johnston asked if air tools would be used.
Mr. Ostrander indicated that they may be doing tire rotations on an infrequent
basis, possibly three to four rotations a day. Commissioner Miller asked what
• arrangements have been made to get rid of the fluid from the fluid exchanges. Mr.
Ostrander explained that he has contracted with Scrap Busters who will recycle the
fluids. He explained that the used oil would be piped into a tank approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency and would be recycled. Commissioner Obert
asked if an oil filter cruncher would be used. Mr. Ostrander explained that since
Scrap Busters does not require filters to be crushed, he would prefer not to
crush his own filters if possible.
Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court Circle, asked where Spot's Quick Lube will
be located. It was explained that it will be the old Auto Central site. Mr. Ruggles
brought up the Texaco Muffler shop across the street. Mr. Ostrander explained
that the demographic study done by CITCO did not even put Texaco in the same
category as far as competition because Texaco's primary function is muffler
changes with quick lube as a secondary use.
Jim Miller, 7980 Fairchild Avenue, expressed his concern with the architectural"`"'
look of the proposed building and its "70's-type" look. Cathy Bennett, Economic
Development Director, addressed the Planning Commission and explained that
one of the things that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) is trying to
accomplish with the corridor study of Highway 10 is to tie in design standards to
• develop a character for the corridor. She informed them that this study will be
discussed at the April 7th City Council meeting. Chair Peterson explained to
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
III
Regular Meeting Page 4
Mr. Miller that the Planning Commission presently does not get involved with
building characteristics partly because there are no standards that apply to the
City as a whole. Mr. Ostrander clarified that CITGO did perform a study which
indicated that the look of the proposed building is appealing to the public.
Commissioner Johnston read an excerpt from the Mounds View Code
regarding the criteria for approval of B-3, minor auto repair facilities, and how
they pertain to architectural appearance. Chair Peterson added that property
owners have certain rights to build in certain zoned districts. He continued by
saying that this property is zoned B-3 which allows the current proposal. Chair
Peterson asked Mr. Ericson if there were any outstanding issues remaining. Mr.
Ericson explained that in addition to the lighting issue, the revised landscape
plan must be addressed and easement documents must be prepared.
Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brooks to approve Resolution No. 500-97 with conditions as
discussed by the Planning Commission.
The needed revisions of the landscaping and lighting were briefly discussed.
Chair Peterson explained to the audience that the action taken by the Planning
4110
Commission that evening was a recommendation to the City Council and that
various minor details could be worked out prior to Council action.
Commissioner Obert expressed that he felt the applicant should be allowed to
keep the wall packs in the rear of the building on all night and it was decided that
a condition would be added that indicates the overhead lighting must be turned
off at night which meant that turning off any other lighting would be up to the
discretion of the applicant.
Motion Carried: 7 ayes, 0 nays
Chair Peterson informed the applicant that the next step would be City Council action
on April 14th.
dill 6.
Planning Case No. 477-97
Silver Lake Road and Highway 10
Applicant: D.W. Jones, Inc.
Request for a Rezoning from 8-2 to Planned Unit Development to allow a gas station with
fast food and car wash components; restaurant; senior housing complex; and office •
building.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 5
•
The applicant, D.W. Jones, Inc, was represented at the meeting.
Planning Associate Ericson reviewed the Staff Report dated April 2, 1997,
regarding this request. He explained that the request consists of a motor fuel
station with a fast food and car wash component, restaurant, senior housing
complex, and an office building. Mr. Ericson reminded the Commission that the
applicant, at their last meeting, provided a tax impact report, market and traffic
analyses and that the Commission had expressed some concern over the gas
station and car wash components of the project indicating that the City did not
need any more of these types of uses. He added that he has received a number
of letters from residents bearing the same sentiment. He distributed a map
showing all of the gas stations and car washes located within the City (7 car
washes, 6 gas stations). He indicated that this use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Highway 10, Area 9, Study. He
explained that one of the unresolved issues is whether or not there is "too much"
proposed for this piece of property. He indicated that the applicant is asking that
the Planning Commission take action this evening regarding this request if
possible. Chair Peterson requested that a minor change be made to the map of
car washes. He pointed out that Saturn should be added to the map.
Commissioner Stevenson believes that there would be at least 400 car washes
a month at the Saturn Dealership. Since this is a significant amount of water
usage for the City, he also believes it should be added to the list.
Community Development Director Sheldon explained that the applicant is
requesting that this request move forward. Director Sheldon explained that Staff
felt they could not prepare a resolution because they did not know what the
Planning Commission's reasoning was and what points should be included in the
resolution. She explained that one possible option would be to take a straw poll
of the Planning Commission regarding the general concept of the project in order
to give Staff some direction and the resolution could be brought to the next
meeting. The other option would be to hold the discussion and Staff would
prepare the resolution without taking a vote. She explained that having a vote
taken that evening would not result in the proposal getting to City Council any
sooner than if it was decided at Planning Commission's next meeting. Staffs
advice have PUD plan developed that include a detailed
was to have a f UU that would i�w�u v
explanation of what was approved and what further issues would need to be
resolved at later steps in the process (lighting, signage, traffic and access,
dimensional requirements for building such as heights and setbacks, uses
• allowed, drainage, etc.).
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 6 •
Chair Peterson felt that a straw poll would be a good idea to see what direction
the members are leaning, but personally felt that it was too early to make a
decision on the request.
Mr. Mike Black, Land Use Planner for Royal Oak Realty in Shoreview, addressed
the Planning Commission. He introduced the other representatives of D.W. Jones,
Inc., that were present: George Winiecki, WIN Agency; Ralph and Chuck Durand,
5-D Limited; Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oak Realty; Brian Ross and William
Smith of Biko Associates; Charles Plow, Consulting Engineer; and John Adair,
Attorney of Bagly and Benson.
Mr. Black presented to the Planning Commission an alternate concept plan which
contains four elements: motor fuel station with fast food and car wash, family sit-
down restaurant, senior housing with assisted living, and an office building on
Highway 10. He pointed out that the alternate plan shows more detail of the
restaurant location. He indicated that the restaurant was moved closer to the
wetland to take advantage of the view and with that change came the shifting of
the private road between the fuel station and restaurant. He expressed that it is
their intention to present to the City of Mounds View a mixed PUD that is consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan and with the technical studies that have been
done for the Highway 10 corridor. He summarized some of their concerns
regarding the proposal. They consider the 100 foot buffer from the wetland to be
excessive, but added that it is their intention to meet this requirement of the City's
wetland ordinance and Rice Creek Watershed District. He indicated that they have
provided a sidewalk along Silver Lake Road and would consider public use of the
boardwalk and nature observation deck located in the southwest corner of the site.
He expressed his concern with Staffs recommendation for a public trail along the
north side of the wetland because of privacy and security reasons relating to the
senior housing and businesses along the north side. He added that he cannot
support that request without better clarification and further discussion. He
indicated that they will satisfy the City's park dedication requirements in a cash
contribution to the City. Mr. Black briefly summarized the market needs analysis
and traffic impact report that was presented at the March 19, 1997, Planning
Commission Meeting, pointing out that the existing service stations along Highway
10 failed to serve between 34 and 55 percent of the immediate traffic market and
that the proposed station will ca ture the existing and will not redistribute
proposed.� fuel will a.capau�v the existing voidand will not redistribute
wu�uuac
the existing market. He added that the on-site circulation provided by the private
loop street will assist in minimizing traffic and impact off the site. He expressed his
desire to move on to the City Council with the Planning Commission's
recommendation. Commissioner Brooks inquired if the service station with •
convenience store and fast food is negotiable. Mr. Black replied that they have
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 7
come forward with a PUD package, because of the efforts from the property
owners and investors to put it together, and he expressed that it is important that
each elment of the PUD is approved as a total package. He commented that the
applicant is not prepared to move on with any one single item of the PUD.
Commissioner Brooks also expressed her concern with the competition between
the Amoco Station across the street and the new facility. Mr. Black explained that
there is a market of 34-55 percent that is not yet addressed and this facility could
go in without infringing on the existing market. Commissioner Stevenson
expressed his concern with the number of gas stations that have closed within the
last twenty years.
JoAnn Myers, 2624 Lake Court Drive, asked the Planning Commission the
definition of a B-2 zone and how this development would impact the homes on the
south side of the project. Chair Peterson listed various uses that are allowed in a
B-2 district and briefly explained that less activity will take place on the south end of
the project. Mr. Black pointed out where the roads and accesses to the project are
proposed to be.
• Rose Nejedly, 2701 County Road I, #227, inquired if all the trees on the site would
be removed. Mr. Black indicated that there would be some impact on the existing
vegetation but did not have a detailed plan with him. He indicated that they would
be providing a very detailed landscaping plan at the development stage. Ms.
Nejedly asked if part of the wetland would be dredged out. Mr. Black indicated that
their desire is to dredge it out, but that there were a number of agencies that would
have to be consulted before doing so. Mr. Black added that by dredging the
wetland, they would achieve on-going standing water.
Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court Drive, inquired about the 100 foot wetland buffer
and also expressed his concern with the possibility of the oils, salts, soaps, etc.,
due to increased surface paving, from the gas station and car washes entering the
wetland. Director Sheldon explained that the wetland ordinance sets out that the
100 foot width that must be identified around all designated wetlands but that the
ordinance allows some construction within the buffer area with administrative
review. She added that certain other activities would require Planning Commission
and City Council review. She explained that Staff is asking to what degree the
encroachment should be allowed. She explained that the City Engineer would
review the plans to assure they have designed the drainage system and ponding
so that the contaminants do not enter the wetland. Chair Peterson added that
there has been strong public support in Mounds View for wetland preservation and
• the purpose of the Wetland Ordinance is to make sure the wetlands are preserved
and not degraded. He added that the wetland buffer was put into place in order to
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 8
put some controls on what happens in the wetlands. He recalled that in the past
some development had been allowed in the buffer, but that it was primarily
intended to be a buffer and not for intensive development. Commissioner
Stevenson added that the reason for the buffer was to make sure any
development proposed for the wetland was reviewed. Commissioners Miller and
Johnston expressed their concern with the difference in wetland delineations
shown on the maps for 1988 and 1992 and asked if 1997 would also be different.
Mr. Black indicated that he believed the 1992 delineation would be acceptable to
Rice Creek Watershed District because it was not more than five years old. Mr.
Black asked if he could receive a copy of a letter the City received from the Army
Corps of Engineers regarding this issue. He indicated that if the Army Corps of
Engineers is suggesting that a new delineation be done, they would have it looked
at and verified. Commissioner Brasaemle expressed that he does prefer to see
buildings versus parking lots constructed in the buffer zone because of the
associated problems with run-off. He also expressed some concern with the
location of the proposed NURP (National Urban Run-Off Program) in the wetland
and where in the upland could it be moved if needed.
Chuck Plow, Project Engineer, reported that the information he has regarding the •
NURP pond indicates that it is not in the wetland, yet if they were not able to use it
as a NURP pond area, the other NURP pond on the site would satisfy ponding
requirements.
Barb McKenzy, 2463 Ridge Lane, expressed her concern with the number of gas
stations and car washes in Mounds View and inquired if the senior complexes in
the area were being filled.
Jim Miller, 7980 Fairchild Avenue, expressed his concern with the NURP pond
being too close to the underground parking for the proposed senior building. Chair
Peterson replied that he believes the elevation to be similar to the ground floor
elevation at Silver Lake Pointe on the south side of the project which also has
underground parking. Mr. Miller also expressed his concern with the traffic flow on
the corner of Silver Lake Road and Highway 10.
Bill Smith, Transportation Planner for Biko Associates, addressed the traffic
and .L..1,... �� L.. briefly ____ the plan and the results of the traffic stac;king wnuerns by summarizing results tramc
study that was conducted for this proposed project. He described the design of the
loop road and driveway access to the gas station/car wash facility and indicated
that the County Engineer, Dan Solar's, opinion was that the loop road is important
to the project. He informed the Commission that a sign would be placed on the site •
to inform car wash traffic to not block the driveway and that on-site staff for the car
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 9
•
wash could help regulate traffic. He added that quick turn-around modifications
could be made to the driveway to widen it if necessary. Chair Peterson
commented that he believes that this corner causes problems routinely and that the
north driveway entrance would not be able to be used during rush hour. He was
also concerned with the speed of cars near the proposed area. Mr. Smith
responded by saying that because Silver Lake Road is a two-lane facility, there
would be more of an opportunity to pass any southbound traffic that may be
stacked up and that the northbound stacking will be at a peak of a peak period
(approximately 10 minutes of the peak period) and would not occur throughout the
entire peak hour. Mr. Smith pointed out that this development would narrow the
envelope for motorists and slow down the speed on Silver Lake Road.
Commissioner Johnston inquired if the traffic study was conducted on projected
or existing traffic. Mr. Smith indicated that the study was conducted using existing
traffic. Commissioner Miller expressed some concern with confusion of cross-
traffic from Silver Lake Road. Mr. Smith understood her concern but alluded to the
fact that Americans are accustomed to driving their cars in gas stations. He added
they are aware they must be extra careful and attentive while driving at any gas
station. Commissioner Obert expressed concerns with southbound stacking on
• Silver Lake Road turning into the gas station. Mr. Smith assured the Planning
Commission that this issue had been looked at and that it was determined that
there would not be a problem.
Jim Miller, 7980 Fairchild Avenue, also expressed concern with a potential
stacking problem on Silver Lake Road during peak times.
Ralph Durand, 5-D Limited, advised them that both their traffic consultants and
the County Engineer have examined this issue and have indicated that this project
would not provide a major traffic access problem. He also mentioned that the
Towle Report revealed that this corner is the most valuable corner of the whole site
and that its proper use would be an impulse, not destination, type use. He added
that this is exactly the use they are proposing. He also'clarified that when entering
the gas station, a consumer would first purchase the gas and then get into line for
a car wash, and therefore, no quick decisions would need to be made at the time
of entrance.
Jim Miller, 7980 Fairchild Avenue, again expressed his concern with traffic in and
out. of the site. Iver. Smith responded by saying that studies show that the proposed
t"'
drives will work.
Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court Drive, inquired if the applicant wanted to receive
• a decision from the Planning Commission this evening. He also inquired about the
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 10
1111
Highway 10 study that was done for this area. Economic Development Director
Bennett explained that a study was conducted, with public input, and the results of
the study would be presented at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, April 7th at City Hall. She
indicated that she had not seen the final draft of the study but that it did mark that
corner as an impulse corner and that one of the suggestions from the consultant
was that it should be packaged as a planned unit development so that design
elements could be carried throughout the development versus having spot
development on the site. Mr. Ruggles expressed that he did not think that the
Planning Commission could make a decision without first seeing the results of the
study that would be presented Monday evening. Chair Peterson concurred that it
would be premature to take action this evening and commented that there are
many details to be worked out.
George Winiecki, WIN Agency, 2732 Highway 10, informed the Commission that,
in the past, he had discussed development of this site with the City and that the
City had indicated that they would like to see a planned unit development for the
site. He too stated that this was what they are proposing.
Chair Peterson asked that the Planning Commissioners give their overall direction
regarding this project. He started by indicating that he had some concerns with the
total quantity being built on the site. He indicated that the uses are acceptable,
except that he is concerned with the number of car washes and gas stations in
Mounds View and hesitated to recommend that part of the project.
Commissioner Obert expressed his concern with the architectural integrity of the
project and believes that the issue needs further review. He added that he would
like to see the results of the study presented Monday evening because he believes
this would play a critical role in his decision making for the development of the
corridor. He was also concerned with the local residents and the traffic problems
they may experience on Silver Lake Road. He added that, as a resident of
Mounds View, by making the commercial corridor pleasant and pleasing, it would
increase property values and, therefore, the City Council would not have to
artificially raise property taxes.
Commissioner Johnston concurred with Commissioner Obert that the
Commission needs to wait to hear the results of the corridor study. Commissioner
Johnston is also concerned with the amount of building within the wetland buffer
zone and its current delineation. He admitted that, at present, he thought the
project needed to be scaled back. He realizes that there are a lot of gas stations
and car washes in the area, but if that was what the study recommended, he would
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 11
have to go along with the study. He also suggested that perhaps soil testing be
done in relation to the underground parking concern.
Commissioner Miller also expressed concern with development within the wetland
buffer and the circulation around the car wash and gas station. She also inquired
as to what the objection was with the gas stations: was it the gas station itself or
was it that we did not need any more in Mounds View? She added that if the study
showed there was a need and business for it, would we be standing in the way of
progress? She also expressed concern with gas stations going out as fast as
others come in but wondered if that should be the Planning Commission's concern.
She added that if the buffer issue could be resolved, she believed the project had a
nice mix of things, but questioned the necessity of the fast food component of the
project. Chair Peterson asked if they had contracted with any one for the gas
station and fast food facilities. Mr. Smith indicated that the proposed gas station
would be a Holiday Station and that they had had contact with a treat-type fast food
restaurant.
Commissioner Stevenson expressed his concern with the viability of the gas
4110 station and that when one opens up another one closes. He also expressed
concern with the number of car washes and the water usage generated. He
remarked that in the summer the residents cannot even water their lawns because
of a watering ban, but yet car washes continue to operate. He did not have a
problem with the convenience store and a small restaurant component but felt
10,000 square feet was rather small for a restaurant. He had no objections with
the office building or senior building. He added that Silver Lake Pointe filled up and
a waiting list was created and he had no doubt that the proposed senior building
would also be filled. He added that the location of the ponds could be worked out.
Commissioner Brooks expressed her disagreement with the convenience
store/gas station component of the project.
Commissioner Brasaemle expressed that he liked the concept of the planned unit
development and believed it to be dearly the direction in which the consr_t:=: :°
indicated for the parcels. He added that he thought there were a lot of things
proposed for a fairly small site. However, conceptually, he saw no problem with
three of the four uses: the senior complex, the restaurant, and the office bu: ing.
He indicated that he had a problem with the gas station/convenience store/fast
food proposal and was having difficulty reconciling what a portion of the Towle
report indicated and the opinions of the residents of Mounds View. He thought the
• Commission needed to wait for the SRF report in order to make a final decision
which he felt could be made on April 16th.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
•
Regular Meeting Page 12
Chair Peterson expressed some additional concern regarding the driveways along
Highway 10 and the parking requirements. Director Sheldon indicated that with the
uses that the applicant has proposed, there would be enough space to meet
parking requirements. She added that there was some concern with the office
building and whether the building needed to be smaller to acheive adequate
parking. Chair Peterson expressed that he felt the wetland boundaries would
certainly affect how much development could be done on the site and asked if a
new delineation would be required. Director Sheldon indicated that the City could
require it as a condition. Chair Peterson added that he was not totally opposed to
the gas station facility if the market study proved it viable.
Commissioner Miller inquired what kind of car wash was proposed. Ralph
Durand, 5-D Limited, informed the Commission that the car wash would be a
tunnel wash which would be the only one of its kind, other than the Perfect 10 in
Spring Lake Park. Chuck Durand, 5-D Limited, informed the Commission that
they could reclaim up to 60 percent of the water used, and other than the rinsing,
recycled water would be used so the water usage wouldn't be as great as most car
washes.
George Winiecki, WIN Agency, commented that the older gas stations close
•
because they have outlived their use and the consumer today demands services
that their proposed station offers. He added that there are a limited number of
uses that can support the price of the property and he believed it will provide a
viable service to the community.
Planning Associate Ericson stated that he thought all of the unresolved issues had
been addressed by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Obert expressed his excitement with the residents attending the
Planning Commission meetings and encouraged them to continue.
Director Sheldon asked the Planning Commission what they wanted for their next
meeting. She indicated that she understood the applicant's desire to m-s :� a
forward, and that the City had an overall limit of 120 days from when the application
was submitted to when it needed to be in front of the Council.
Chair Peterson inquired if the applicants would like to make any additional
comments. George Winiecki recalled that at one time his lot was zoned B-3 but
that a developer had it down-zoned to a B-2 for a proposed book store. He added
that when the development did not occur, the zoning was left 8-2. Mr. Black •
commented that he appreciated the Planning Commission's review and
Mounds'View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
• Regular Meeting Page 13
consideration of this proposal. He added that the applicant is uncomfortable with
the Planning Commission's overriding concern as it relates to the gas station and
the buffer. He indicated that, at the present time, the items they have proposed are
not negotiable. He realized that this was only a concept review and that during the
development stage there would be additional issues to be addressed in a more
thorough review by both the Planning Commission and City Council. He asked that
the Planning Commission, at their next meeting, make a recommendation to the
Council so that they can present their proposal for the Council's comments and
review so that they could either come back after Council action with a different plan
or proceed with the development stage.
Commissioner Brasaemle proposed that Staff prepare resolution of both approval
and denial for their next meeting. He also suggested that Staff complete as much
information in the PUD document as possible and the Planning Commission could
fill in the blanks at their next meeting.
Chair Peterson asked the applicant, since they had expressed no room for
negotiation, if the Planning Commission would be looking at the same proposal at
their next meeting or would there be any changes made to the proposal. Mr. Black
informed the Commission that as they proceeded into the development stage, they
would receive further details on the architectural style of the buildings, landscaping,
traffic circulation on the site, storm water quantity and quality control and NURP
pond design, but added that differences between the Planning Commission and the
applicant are far apart. He commented that the Planning Commission was
suggesting elimination of the gas station which was something that they would not
consider at this time. He advised the Commission that the issues regarding too
much development on the site or the impact on the wetland could not or would not
be changed before their next meeting.
Commissioner Brooks left the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
7. Staff Report/Information Items
a, Director Sheldon reminded the Commission that the SRF Consulting Highway 10,
Area 9 Report would be presented at the City Council meeting Monday evening
(April 7).
b. Ms. Sheldon reported that the University of Minnesota Design Course had provided
a schedule of the meeting and they are looking for Commissioners to serve as a
• regular member of the design team and as an alternate member. Some of the
Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997
Regular Meeting Page 14 •
meetings are at the campus from 4-6:30 pm. Others would be in Mounds View
from 11:30 am -3:30 pm. They would typically be on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
Commissioner Brooks indicated to Ms. Sheldon earlier that she could attend the
meetings from 4-6:30 pm. Commissioner Stevenson was designated as the
regular member and Commissioner Brooks as the alternate.
c. Commissioner Obert indicated that he could not attend the April 10th Beyond the
Basics Course but could possibly attend on April 24th.
8. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
There were no reports from the Commissioners.
9. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting
adjourned at 10:10 p.m. A special agenda meeting to discuss the O'Neil property
immediately followed the regular meeting.
•
Respectfully submitted,
AwutAi- .
Pamela Sheldon
Community Development Director
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
0 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
April 16, 1997
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Peterson at 7:05 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Members present: Commissioners Brooks, Johnston, Obert, Brasaemle,
Stevenson and Chair Peterson (Commissioner Brooks left the meeting at 9:55
p.m., Commissioner Miller had an excused absence.)
Also Present: Community Development Director Sheldon, Planning Associate
Ericson, and Recording Secretary Benesch. Council Liaison Koopmeiners arrived
at 10:10 p.m.
• 3. Approval of Minutes: March 19, 1997
Motion/Second: Stevenson/Brasaemle to approve the minutes of March 19, 1997, as
amended.
Motion Carried: 6 ayes, 0 nays
4. Citizen Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
There were no resident requests or comments from the floor.
Index to Minutes Page
Resolution No. 504-97, Modification No. 1 to the Project Plan for Mounds
View Economic Development Project and Establishment of Tax Increment
as Financing District No. 4 (Redevelopment) 2
- Planning Case No. 471-97, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning 3
To PUD For Movie Theater and Office Buildings for Anthony Properties,
ois2340 Highway 10
Planning Case No. 477-97, Rezoning for D. W. Jones, Inc. for a
Planned Unit Development, Silver Lake Road & Highway 10 1
•
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
Special Meeting Page 2
5. Consideration of Resolution No. 504-97 Regarding Modification to the Project
Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and Establishment
of Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 (Redevelopment)
Community Development Director Sheldon explained that this request was before
the Planning Commission because of a State Law requirement. She continued by
explaining that the City is proposing to form a new tax increment financing district
called District No. 4 which would include the property where the Bel-Rae is located.
She explained that the City has areas where money from tax increment financing
can be spent and that the City has three districts in which tax increment finance
district money is produced and this would be the fourth district. She indicated that
the Planning Commission is being asked to determine whether or not the formation
of this district and the addition of the income stream into the overall development
plan for Mounds View is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She added that
the reason for forming this district is to capture the increment created by V.B. Diggs
and use that increment to help finance the community center project. She
explained that part of the project will include V. B. Diggs, which is a private
business and that this business is expected to cause the property to increase in •
property value. It will continue to be a tax-paying entity but the rest of the project
will not be since it is a public project. She informed the Commission that
improvements that would be eligible for use of the tax increment include:
construction of the parking lot, installation of utilities, and renovation of the building.
She indicated that the Planning Commission may want to add a paragraph to the
resolution that they find this modification consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
as follows: "The creation of TIF District No. 4 would allow the development of a
private business which would, in turn, produce revenues to assist in the installation
of public improvements and renovation of a building intended for a community
center for Mounds View. The Mounds View Comprehensive Plan has divided the
City into 12 planning districts and the proposed TIF District No. 4 is in District No.
1. The Comprehensive Plan envisions the creation of a city center where there will
be a strong, vital identifying community focal point in this district. This district is
intended to be a mixture of commercial; public; low, medium and high density
residential and open space uses. The proposed project is consistent with this
idea." She added that it is Staffs recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 504-97. 0
Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Brooks to approve Resolution No. 504-97 as amended. 'ter
Commissioner Brasaemle added that he thought this was a good idea for Mounds'` ,
.1 .View. Commissioner Johnston inquired if there were 12 development districts in . 3y
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
Special Meeting Page 3
the City. Director Sheldon explained that there are 12 planning districts in the
Comprehensive Plan which are separate from the TIF districts.
Motion Carried: 6 ayes, 0 nays
6.
tanning Case No. 471-97
2430 Highway 10
Applicant: Anthony Properties Management, Inc.
Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to
Mixed Use PUD Allowing Commercial and Office Uses, and Rezoning from B-1 and R-2 to
PUD to Allow Development of a 16-Screen Movie Theater and Three 11,000 Square Foot
Office Buildings.
Mr. Wendell Smith and Mr. Jay Anthony, representing the applicant, Anthony
• Properties Management, Inc., were present.
Director Sheldon explained that the Planning Commission has two actions
before it; the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive plan and a request for
a rezoning from B-1 and R-2 to PUD for commercial uses.
She began with the Comprehensive Plan amendment and indicated that the
City's Code does not have specific procedures for Comp Plan amendments.
She indicated that staff created a set of criteria that the Planning Commission
could use to determine whether or not the designation on the property should be
changed. She indicated that there have been a series of attempts to amend the
Comp Plan and that there has been a range of designations considered
including highway commercial, mixed use, low and medium density residential,
office park, corporate headquarters office, or townhomes. The decision before
the Planning Commission was whether or not to recommend to City Council to
change the medium density residential designation to mixed use that would
anticipate both commercial or residential uses. She read aloud the five goals
noted on Pages 2 and 3 of f7���I..a:_, ��_ rnn nes She
Resolution No. 502-97. She noted as a general
comment that this particular project and the Comp Plan amendment have raised
several important issues: One is whether or not you can introduce a fairly
intense commercial development onto a piece of land that is bordered by a major
highway but also bordered by a low density single family neighborhood. Staff
proposed that the designation make it clear that a portion of the property is
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
Special Meeting Page 4 •
suitable for higher intensity purposes and that a portion is not. She explained
that any designation made to the property for the Comp Plan would remain on
the land whether the theater project goes forward or not.
Mr. Jay Anthony inquired if the mixed use/lower intensity corresponds with the
area shown currently for the offices. Director Sheldon responded that it did.
She explained that using two designations would address compatibility of uses. .
She added that, in terms of maintaining, and where necessary upgrading land ,f'
uses and environmental quality, staff wanted to designate the wetland and
indicate that it is an area to be preserved. Staff also is suggesting that the City
take advantage of the commercial possibilities of the property with its proximity
to Highway 10 by switching it from just residential to mixed use.
She stated that Goal No. 3 addresses the preservation and protection of
property values. She explained the buffer is the technique they would use in order
to make sure the neighborhood does not experience impacts that would be
detrimental.
She went on to note that Goal No. 4 addressed compatibility with features of the
11111
natural environment, i.e. designating the wetland.
Goal No. 5 is to prevent development which is not accompanied by a sufficient
level of services. She added that there is water, sewer and utilities in the
surrounding streets so that urban type uses could be accommodated and the
checking of parking and access would come with the development review.
She explained that this would become part of the Comp Plan if the amendment is
adopted. She briefly summarized the description of District No. 1 which is outlined
in Exhibit 2 of the resolution which explains that this District is intended to become
the City Center, or focal point for the community. She explained, in summary, that
staff has prepared a resolution which provides support for the change in the land
use and amends the district description and the map in a way that would
accommodate this development. The decision on the zoning is separate, but the
Comp Plan amendment allows enough room for the proposed development to be
considered consistent. She informed the Commission that she thought it was
important for them to feel cnmfortahle with this because whether or not the
proposed development is approved, the new designation will continue to be part of
the plan. She added that it is Staffs suggestion that the Planning Commission
recommend this amendment for approval by the City Council.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
Special Meeting Page 5
Chair Peterson commented that the proposed changes are consistent with past
reviews of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Brooks commented that she felt the provisions added for
dedication of land for trail systems and revisions to the description of District 1 of
the Comp Plan are necessary. Director Sheldon read the addition aloud.
Commissioner Stevenson commented that the section regarding commercial and
medium density is a key portion because it ties in with the new designation.
Commissioner Johnston inquired if Exhibits 1 and 2 would become part of the
Comp Plan. Director Sheldon explained that if the Council adopts the resolution,
the exhibits would be put into the Comp Plan.
Mr. Jay Anthony indicated that they have two out-parcels that are a part of their
total PUD which are intended for restaurant development. He was concerned that
he would have to go through the entire PUD process for each of the restaurant
developments. Director Sheldon indicated that they would need to amend the PUD
• to add those uses and it would be a public hearing process. Mr. Anthony
commented that he hoped approval could be obtained at staff level. Director
Sheldon explained that he would not have to go through a Comp Plan amendment
process and that this issue was better addressed when they discussed the
rezoning part of the request.
Commissioner Johnston inquired if this was the only wording for District 1 in the
Comp Plan because he knows there is something else being talked about for
District 1 which is not addressed specifically in the proposed wording. Director
Sheldon indicated that the wording reflects the fact that the primary purpose of the
Comp Plan is to envision what will happen in the future so vacant land tends to be
the focus as opposed to going parcel by parcel and discussing existing
development.
Commissioner Obert inquired who will be responsible for the trailways system if it
is approved for the Comp Plan. Director Sheldon indicated that the Parks and
Recreation Commission notes where the trail systems cross over land being
considered for development, and the location of trails is established at the
development plan stage. If they do not require Planning Commission review, other
techniques may need to be used to relay this information. She added that it could
be the responsibility of the Developer if that is what the City decides.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
Special Meeting Page 6
Chair Peterson commented that the City is looking at a specific development
request and a specific rezoning and removing any inconsistency in the Comp Plan.
Commissioner Johnston inquired when the Comp Plan needed to be updated.
Director Sheldon indicated that it needed to be to Met Council by the end of 1998.
The Planning Commission discussed some of their concerns with the wording of
the proposed District 1 narrative. Director Sheldon explained that the wording
indicates what the City would like to achieve but that there are many different ways
to implement it. She summarized the intention of the wording, explaining that once
the City receives a development request, the City wants to make sure that
sidewalks get constructed that connect into the larger trail system.
Mr. Anthony requested that the language be softened that states, "... development
should include provisions for dedication of land..." to perhaps, "...consideration
should be given to dedication of land...". He commented that a developer could
have a situation where you could not dedicate land. Chair Peterson responded by
saying that the language does say, "should include" and it doesn't say "must
include". •
Director Sheldon suggested a revision relative to general use patterns to say that
"commercial and medium density residential should be located in proximity to
Highway 10". She specifically noted that medium density be changed to higher
density because she does not feel in is appropriate to place single family houses
on Highway 10.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave in the wording proposed
for District 1 for now and that they could make any necessary revisions when they
update the Comp Plan.
Motion/Carried: Stevenson/Brasaemle to adopt Resolution No. 502-97 entitled,
"Resolution Recommending Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium
Density Residential to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the O'N€sii
Property, 2430 Highway 10; Planning Case No. 471-97", including Exhibit 2 as amended.
Motion Carried: 6 ayes, 0 nay c
Director Sheldon continued with the second part of the request relating to rezoning
and reviewed the Staff report dated April 10, 1997. She began by explaining that
this request is for rezoning of the O'Neil property from B-1 and R-2 to PUD for
•
commercial purposes. She briefly reviewed the Staff Report which summarized the
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
• Special Meeting Page 7
discussion that occurred at the last Planning Commission meeting where issues
were reviewed and consensus by the Planning Commission was reached. She did
not review the Comprehensive Plan Amendment because that was just discussed
and she noted that traffic and access would be discussed last. She reviewed
parking, the buffer along County Road H2, the degree of encroachment into the
wetland buffer, what possible improvements should be done with the proposal
regarding accel and decel lanes and walkways, signage, the size of the theater
complex, concerns of surrounding schools, and a comparison with the existing
zoning. She indicated that the Planning Commission had arrived at agreement on
these issues at the last meeting. She noted that traffic and access were deferred
to this meeting because the City just received the supplemental traffic report. She
indicated that the supplemental report was provided to the Planning Commission
and the traffic consultants, Charlene Zimmer and Nancy Heuer of SRF Consulting,
were present to answer any questions. She added that the new diagram included
in the report showed the traffic count expected for the daily volume, the peak hour
for the streets, and the peak hour for the generator (i.e. the theater). The new
diagram also showed the estimated number of U-turns that are expected to occur
during the peak hour for the generator at the Long Lake Road/Highway 10
• intersection, the Edgewood Drive break in the median, and the County Road H2/
Highway 10 intersection. The supplemental traffic report also showed how the
consultants made adjustments to the traffic distribution based on a region-wide
model instead using the current traffic distribution on adjacent streets. This change
was in response to questions about the influence of the Long Lake Road/Silver
Lake Road/I-694 system since the theaters are expected to be a regional draw. It
showed that the volumes on Highway 10 are reduced and more traffic travels west
and south using County Road H2 and Long Lake Road. More traffic goes through
the County Road H2/Long Lake Road intersection, and the level of service would
go from "B" to "C° during the peak hour of the street. This change in level of
service means an additional one-second delay at that intersection. She added that
the consultants were asked by the Planning Commission to look at alternative land
uses in the report; using existing zoning or the existing Comprehensive Plan
designation and other possible land uses that have been considered. She
indicated that five scenarios were used: existing zoning (duplexes on H-2 and
neighborhood business on the rest of the property), the Comprehensive Plan
Designation (single family homes on the entire parcel), townhomes, apartments
and corporate office/offices on the entire parcel. She reported that the use
producing the highest amount of traffic during the peaks was the existing zoning.
She added that the residential scenarios indicated less traffic would be produced
than the current proposal.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
Special Meeting Page 8411
She added that the consultants were also asked to research what was the peak of
the generator. It was found to be from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. She added that the
intersections were re-tested using this peak and there is enough capacity for the U-
turns to be accommodated.
She briefly explained, for the benefit of the audience, what a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) zoning district is: the approval of a specific development that
has a plan and description that goes with it that controls the kind of development
that occurs with certain stipulations. She indicated that there are three stages for
the PUD process: the conceptual stage (where they are right now), the
development stage (public hearings will be held again at this stage by the Planning
Commission and City Council) and the final plan which is an administrative review.
Director Sheldon continued by briefly describing items 1-23 of the Planned Unit
Development document (Exhibit 1 of Ordinance No. 598). She suggested that
another item be added: that all utilities be placed underground. She noted that if
the PUD document is approved by the City Council, it would be recorded against
the property so that the controls listed would continue to govern the property and
would be attached to the PUD designation. She added that it is Staffs
recommendation, with these stipulations in place, that the Planning Commission
recommend that the PUD be approved and then forwarded to the City Council. •
Commissioner Stevenson complimented Staff for the way the information for this
request was presented. Chair Peterson agreed and commented that it was very
well organized and that it would be difficult to handle this much detail without such
thorough reports.
Mr. Anthony inquired about the landscaping (#10 of the Planned Unit
Development) and the requirement that the property owner shall be made available
a minimum of 15 feet along the Highway 10 frontage for the City or City's agent to
implement the design theme, Mr. Anthony was concerned with the footage the site
plan provided for this area. Director Sheldon indicated that their proposed setback
from the right-of-way to the parking lot is 30 feet.
Chair Peterson asked the applicant if there had been any changes with the plan
since their last discussion. Mr. Anthony indicated that there had not been any
changes.
The Planning Commission continued with discussion on the traffic study.
Commissioner Stevenson commented that the report verified a hunch the
Planning Commission had about the current zoning versus the proposal and that •
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
• Special Meeting Page 9
the way it is zoned now actually produced more traffic than the current proposal.
The difference is when the peak for developed property would occur. The peak for
the different developments would occur at different times, but the overall impact is
less. He was also concerned with the traffic impact on Long Lake Road and
County Road H2 and how it compares to the previous study.
Charlene Zimmer, Principal for SRF Consulting, addressed the question, indicating
that the only changes that have occurred in the study had to do with the distribution
of traffic on Long Lake Road and County Road H2 that resulted because they used
the regional traffic forecasting model to distribute the trips. She briefly reviewed the
results as noted in the revised traffic study. She explained that what occurred is
that the volumes did increase on County Road H2 and Long Lake Road from the
last report from five to nine percent. She noted that County Road H2 would have
an increase in traffic of 11 percent daily.
The Planning Commission and SRF Consulting discussed various traffic routes and
distribution.
• Commissioner Johnston expressed some concern with the safety of U-turns and
indicated he did not see it addressed in the study. Ms. Zimmer indicated that two
of the three intersections are signalized which manages the traffic flow and,
therefore, reduces the number of conflicts.
Chair Peterson brought up the suggestion by the Police Department to align
Edgewood Drive with the front entrance of the theater and signalize it. He asked
Ms. Zimmer how this would affect the traffic flow. Ms. Zimmer indicated that they
had not done a traffic flow analysis along Highway 10 with Edgewood Drive being a
signalized intersection. She believed, however, that the level of congestion, to a
great extent, was managed by how the signals are timed and how they progress.
She expressed that one of the concerns with adding a signal would be that it would
complicate the progression of traffic and studies would need to be done to
determine whether or not a signal could be effectively added on Highway 10. With
regard to the flow of traffic, the opinion of the consultant was, that it was better to
limit the theater entrance to right-in, right-out because it helps on a high volume
road such as Highway 10. Regarding left turns, the consultant added that it is
better to have a four-legged intersection and it is better to have it signalized. Ms.
Zimmer expressed some concerns with the number of access points because the
more access points you have the more impact you have on safety and traffic flow.
In terms of getting in and out of the site, a signalized, four-legged intersection is the
411 desirable solution. But in terms of the traffic flow on Highway 10, there is a
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
•
Special Meeting Page 10
question that hasn't been answered because you have to look at the signal
progression along that corridor before you can make that determination.
Discussion continued regarding the traffic study. Ms. Zimmer made a comment
that most people who live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed theater would
use the secondary streets instead of using the major thoroughfares to go to the
theater.
Commissioner Stevenson asked if MnDOT would be likely to change the signal
pattern of the existing signals in the area during peak theater times. Ms. Zimmer
indicated that it would depend upon the type of signal that is installed. She
explained that some of the newer signals are demand responsive and thus it would
occur automatically while the older signals, where times have been specifically set,
may be more difficult to change.
Chair Peterson inquired about the traffic impact on the neighborhood near County
Road H2. Ms. Zimmer summarized that County Road H2 already has high traffic
levels, so the increase in traffic may or may not be noticeable to people. She
added that, certainly those who live directly on County Road H2 will feel the impact •
of traffic. For this kind of a land use, they do not expect traffic to move off County
Road H2 to the adjoining streets through the neighborhood.
David Chase, 5244 Skiba Drive, inquired which direction would people who live
towards the west and south go when leaving the theater. Ms. Zimmer responded
that some of them will use County Road H2 and Long Lake Road, unless they stay
on Highway 10. The consultant did not believe that people will get off of County
Road H2 or Long Lake Road and go further into the neighborhood.
Chair Peterson and Ms. Zimmer agreed that traffic issues are one of the major
emotional issues relating to development.
There were no further questions relating to traffic.
Commissioner Obert brought up the requirement in the Planned Unit
Development stipulations that the developer is to place remote cameras in the
parking lot. Mr. Anthony expressed that this was an unusual and inappropriate
request. Commissioner Obert asked where the requirement came from. Director
Sheldon indicated that it was a conclusion from the interviews that she had with
Police Departments in other cities who have larger theaters. Commissioner Obert
felt that these types of cameras were not necessary because they were not •
effective and they could not be used in court. He added that perhaps "dummy"
• Mounds View Planning Commission
April 16, 1997
Special Meeting Page 11
cameras could be used. Mr. Anthony assured the Planning Commission, that as
owners of the theater, security problems, if any, would be addressed. He added
that he did not feel it should be a PUD requirement. It was suggested by the
Planning Commission that the requirement to place remote cameras in the parking
lot of the theater be removed from the PUD requirements and that it be replaced
with ....shall put in place security measures if it is determined by the Mounds View
Police Chief that there are persistent security problems associated with this PUD".
Chair Peterson asked Mr. Anthony if he had had a chance to review the
requirements of the PUD and if, other than the requirement of the remote cameras
in the parking lot, were the other items acceptable. Mr. Anthony responded that
he has had a chance to review them and found them acceptable.
Sandy Simmons, 5041 Edgewood Drive, inquired when the office buildings would
be built and why they could not be constructed at the same time as the theater.
Commissioner Obert responded by saying that Staff had researched this matter
and has determined that the vacancy rate for an office building, of the same size
proposed, was five percent. Therefore, they do not expect a problem getting the
• space leased. Chair Peterson asked Ms. Simmons if the provisions regarding
fencing and other screening were acceptable. Ms. Simmons responded that the
office buildings are their buffer.
Commissioner Stevenson asked the applicant what was the time frame for
opening the theater and how much time would they need to lease office space. Mr.
Anthony expressed that he hopes to be open by Christmas of this year. If they
miss that time frame, he would expect them to be open in June, 1998.
Commissioner Stevenson commented that if they opened in December, they may
not have ail their office space leased, however if they opened in June of next year,
they may have all the space leased and, therefore, construction of the office
buildings would occur at the same time as the theater.
Commissioner Obert asked if the City could mandate the timing of construction by
PUD or would they let the market itself drive the construction. Mr. Wendell Smith
informed the Commission a certain portion of an office building must be pre-leased
prior to obtaining a loan.
1
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to let the market decide the 1
timing of the construction for the office buildings.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
41111
Special Meeting Page 12
Linda Chase, 5244 Skiba Drive, inquired what would be the length of the fence
along County Road H2. Director Sheldon illustrated on the plan where the fence is
proposed to be located.
Dave Chase, 5244 Skiba Drive, inquired if the gap shown on the plan was a
walkway. The Commission indicated that there is a gap in the trees and that the
intention is not to have foot traffic access to County Road H2.
It was the Planning Commission's consensus to include a statement in the PUD,
under item #9, that says the area shown for the office buildings shall be maintained
as a buffer area with existing vegetation until such time as the offices are built with
the specific dimension to be determined with the development plan stage.
Commissioner Brooks left at 9:55 p.m.
Mr. Anthony asked the Commission what the process would be to include the
restaurants as part of this PUD submittal. Director Sheldon suggested that in the
PUD requirements under allowed uses, for parcels A and B, it would read,
"restaurant" with a footnote that would state that the size and parking requirements •
would be determined at the time of the development plan stage, and the ability to
develop the restaurant would be contingent upon submittal of a traffic study. She
added that this would be needed to show that the intersections would continue to
function at an acceptable level of service. She commented that the initial concept
that was brought to Staff had those uses noted, but the plans that were presented
to the neighborhood and the Planning Commission did not show the restaurants,
although they had talked about it. Director Sheldon expressed that she is
concerned with adding restaurants at such a late date. She noted, however, that
she has heard no objection to this type of use from the neighborhood but she is
concerned with traffic impacts. She indicated that if traffic numbers could be
obtained in time for the Council meeting, the proposed restaurants could be
included in the public hearing notices.
The Planning Commission explained to Mr. Anthony that if the restaurants were not
listed on the PUD at this time, he would need to apply for a PUD amendment in
order to develop them. However, if they were added now, no amendment would be
ner•occ=ti to the PUD unless a use other than a restaurant is desired. Mr.
Anthony requested that perhaps other uses, including restaurants, could be added
to the PUD at this time. Director Sheldon again expressed concern with informing
residents who were present at previous meetings and with the traffic studies that
would need to be done. It was the consensus of the applicant and the Planning
411
Commission to add the restaurant uses to the PUD proposal. The Planning
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
Special Meeting Page 13
Commission requested that, prior to review by the City Council, traffic numbers bes'
provided for the restaurant uses.
David Chase, 5244 Skiba Drive, inquired if parking requirements would change if
the restaurants were added. Director Sheldon indicated that they had not yet
examined the two parcels, but that they could add a parking ratio to the PUD and
the applicant would have to size the restaurant to fit the parking and the
restaurants within the limits of the parcels.
Mr. Anthony inquired when the PUD documents are to be signed. He also had
some concerns with Louise O'Neil's signature being required. Director Sheldon
indicated that this issue could be discussed by their attorneys.
Council Liaison Koopmeiners joined the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Motion/Second: Obert/Stevenson to adopt Resolution No. 503-97 entitled, "Resolution
Recommending Approval of a Rezoning from B-1 and R-2 to Planned Unit Development
(PUD), and of a General Concept Plan, for Commercial Uses on the O'Neil Property, 2430
411) Highway 10; Planning Case No. 471-97", as amended.
Mr. Anthony requested that if they could not get action taken on the request in the
time frame discussed that the restaurant uses be removed from the PUD. Director
Sheldon indicated that he could certainly negotiate with Council regarding that
issue.
Motion Carried: 5 ayes, 0 nays
Chair Peterson informed the applicant that this item would be discussed at the City
Council meeting in May (Staff was not sure of the specific date).
There was a 15-minute intermission.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
Special Meeting Page 14 •
Planning Case No. 477-97 lir
Silver Lake Road and Highway 10
Applicant: D.W. Jones, Inc.
Request for a Rezoning from B-2 to Planned Unit Development to allow a gas station with
fast food and car wash components; restaurant; senior housing complex; and office '
building.
Representatives of the applicant, D.W. Jones, Inc, were represented at the
meeting.
Director Sheldon reviewed the staff report dated April 16, 1997. She reminded the
Commission that there was a lengthy discussion at their last meeting regarding this
project and the general consensus of the Planning Commission was that the
overall combination of uses appeared suitable with one exception; the gas station.
She believed their main concern was the number of gas stations already existing in
Mounds View. Another concern expressed by the Commission was the amount of
development on the site and the extent that the development encroaches into the0
wetland buffer. She reminded the Commission that at their last meeting, they
directed Staff to prepare two resolutions: one for approval and one for denial. She
informed the Commission that, in the resolution of approval, the main point of
emphasis is that the research done on the Area 9 study for Highway 10 indicates
that the proposed uses are suitable for the area. The reasons cited in support of
approval include: the proposed development is supported by a recent consultant
study of the type of uses that would be feasible and marketable in the Area 9
Section of Highway 10; it provides a mixture of uses that appear compatible with
the surroundings; within the development, the uses are complimentary to one
another, the traffic study shows that the Highway 10/ Silver Lake Road intersection
will continue to function at an acceptable level of service; and the development
meets the specific criteria in the PUD district.
Director Sheldon explained that in the resolution of denial, one of the points
concerns the relationship to the Comp Plan. The Camp Plan that refers to
promoting and facilitating development of commercial activities which are
complement4 J to those that are already existing and with respect to ail of the use
exceptrthe gas station, she felt the request has been met. With respect to the gas
station, the resolution suggests the Planning Commission make a finding that there
is an excess of this type of use in the surrounding community. Additional concerns
are the possible detrimental affects of an additional gas station in a community that
already has six and that the traffic study has been questioned by the Ramsey 4111
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
1111 Special Meeting Page 15
County traffic engineer. He feels that there would be stacking problems on Silver
Lake Road. The market study submitted by the applicant indicates that there is an
unmet demand for gas stations but the market to supply the demand is bigger than
Mounds View. The study may need to be revised to include all the gas stations in
the travel route rather than just in Mounds View. She briefly reviewed the specific
points listed in the resolution of denial: the number of gas stations, the possibility of
environmental problems with underground storage tanks, the amount of
encroachment into the wetland buffer, the feeling of the Planning Commission that
there is too much development on the site, and the information from the Ramsey
County Traffic Engineer.
Mr. Mike Black, Land Use Planner for Royal Oak Realty in Shoreview, addressed
the Planning Commission. He introduced the other representatives of D.W. Jones,
Inc., that were present: George Winiecki, WIN Agency; Ralph and Chuck Durand,
5-D Limited, and Skip Ducheneau, representing D.W. Jones, Inc.
Mr. Black stated that there have been points made regarding the buffer area,
density, and the architectural compatibility with the buildings. He added that they
• are all valid issues and assured the Planning Commission that they would be
addressed in greater detail at the development stage. He stated that they were
there to ask for consideration of a concept PUD along with a rezoning. He
indicated that they wanted the Planning Commission's consideration of the total
package and were not prepared to remove any portion of the package. He assured
the Commission that if the approval of the PUD came with conditions, they would
be considered and carried on to the Council. Mr. Black expressed his concern
with the revised resolution with regard to the comment from the Ramsey County
Traffic Engineer. Since he just learned of the stacking concerns on Silver Lake
Road that evening, he is not prepared to respond at this time but assured them that
any traffic issues with Ramsey County would be addressed.
Chair Peterson responded to the issue regarding stacking on Silver Lake Road
and informed the audience that he has observed this problem on a regular basis.
Mr. Ron Schmidt, Amoco Station, 2800 Highway 10, commented that the entire
Highway 10 situation should be looked at and agreed with Chair Peterson that
there is a traffic problem at that intersection.
Mr. Black and the Planning Commission briefly discussed specific traffic scenarios
at Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road and how they related to stacking. Director
• Sheldon suggested that perhaps the applicant could meet with Dan Solar, Ramsey
County Traffic Engineer, to discuss the issue.
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
Special Meeting Page 16 •
Mr. Ralph Durand, 5-D Limited, addressed the Planning Commission commenting
that they have met extensively with Mr. Solar who specifically located the curb cuts
and indicated where they should be. He also assured the Planning Commission
that any traffic concerns would be addressed.
Mr. Black addressed the issue of their being unwilling to omit the gas station from
the proposal. He pointed out that the gas station is there to capture the unused
market on Highway 10. He also addressed the environmental concerns and
indicated that today, with the technology that is used, the protection against ground
contamination far exceeds what was used in the past and he does not believe this
to be an issue. He also addressed the wetland buffer issue stating that 9 of 11
cities surveyed do not even have a wetland buffer requirement and that the City
consultant's plan (i.e. SRF Highway 10-Area 9 study) shows almost as much
encroachment into the buffer as the applicant shows on their concept plan.
Mr. George Winiecki, 2732 Highway 10, addressed the issue of environmental
concerns regarding storage tanks. He indicated that the insurance industry
provides coverage for pollution leakage problem and it is inexpensive for customers
with the new technology.
Chuck Durand, 5-D Limited, informed the Commission that State of Minnesota
periodically taxes gasoline to assist in clean up issues and they also have strict
controls regarding type of tanks used.
Commissioner Stevenson expressed his concern that, if another gasoline station
goes in, will an existing facility in Mounds View be forced to close. If so, would the
City then have to deal with dean up issues. Mr. Winiecki indicated that there are
controls that the City could impose regarding dean-up and believes that clean-up is
not an issue.
Chair Peterson inquired if we had received any new information regarding the
wetland boundary. Director Sheldon indicated that a wetland delineation would
have to be done and added that the boundary that will decide whether or not the
development can occur within a certain area is governed by the DNR. It was her
suggestion that this issue be discussed at the development stage.
Commissioner Stevenson expressed his concern with the amount of water usage
with the addition of another car wash. The applicant informed the Commission that
60 percent of the water used is recaptured. Director Sheldon indicated that they
could get an opinion of the Public Works Director regarding this issue.
•
0 Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
Special Meeting Page 17
Mr. Ralph Durand, 5-D Limited, addressed the Commission and summarized what
they feel to,be the status of this request. He indicated that at the last meeting, it
was his understanding that the Commission needed the results of the Highway 10,
Area 9, study in order to make a recommendation regarding this request. He
indicated that the Commission also requested more information regarding the
wetland buffer and there was discussion regarding the car wash. But he did not
interpret it to be a contingency because their car wash would be different than
other car washes. With regard to the SRF report, what has been confirmed is, that
they are proposing precisely what the report is recommending. Commissioner
Stevenson responded by saying that the report did not specifically indicate service
station and, in fact, they actually said more services stations would not be an
appropriate use for this site. Mr. Durand indicated that SRF Consulting indicated
that the corner should be a food and fuel or a high use/impulse commercial use.
Both Commissioners Stevenson and Brasaemle disagreed with Mr. Durand's
interpretation that the proposed use is precisely what the report had indicated for
this corner. Commissioner Brasaemle alluded to the fact that the proposal fails to
meet a couple of points in the report: that not all of these uses could be built on the
site, but a combination of two or three is definitely possible as opposed to the
• applicant's proposal that includes four uses; and that there is a need to consolidate
access points onto Highway 10.
Mr. Durand continued with his summary commenting that they are aware of the
buffer noting that the City's study indicates that 9 of 11 other communities do not
require a buffer. He commented that they are still respecting 55 percent of the
buffer area.
Director Sheldon asked for clarification on the comment regarding additional
service stations not being an appropriate use for the corner. It was determined that
the list from which Mr. Stevenson had obtained this information came from a
workshop where people from the community were asked for their opinions, and
therefore, it was not a conclusion of the Towle Report done in conjunction with the
SRF Study.
Mr. Winiecki commented on the number of restaurants located on Highway 10 and
the Planning Commission's willingness to add more, while they are not in favor of
adding another gas station. He said he believes the advantages of this
development far outweigh the disadvantages.
Commissioner Johnston stated that his major concerns are traffic and the
• wetland delineation. Commissioner Obert expressed that he is also concerned
with possible stacking and access problems. Mr. Black again brought up SRF's
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
Special Meeting Page 18 •
Report and the conclusion that this use would be a prime use for this corner. He
again assured the Commission that any traffic issues will be addressed as they
proceed through the process. Director Sheldon briefly addressed the traffic
concerns made by the Commission and the Commission agreed that the issue is
not an intersection concern but the ability to get in and out of the site. Chair
Peterson expressed that his main concern is with the community image of adding
another gas station in Mounds View, not the use itself but that he also had some
concerns with site density.
Chair Peterson asked the Commission for a motion to either approve or deny the
request.
Commissioner Stevenson expressed that he thinks we need a PUD, however he
feels the applicant needs to present further high impulse uses for the Highway 10/
Silver Lake Road corner for review by the Commission.
Mr. Black communicated to the Planning Commission that they have given a lot of
consideration and study to this plan and expressed that they would much rather
move on to the Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission that •
supports their efforts as opposed to one of denial. He added that the approval
could be subject to certain conditions of the Planning Commission. He reminded
the Commission that they are dealing with a concept stage. He is aware there is a
lot of work to do beyond this point and there could be many reasons to deny this
project beyond this evening if they do not satisfy the City's concerns. He added
that he believes the Council would rather hear their concerns in a positive tone as
opposed to a recommendation of denial.
Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Johnston to approve Resolution No. 505-97 (Option #1),
entitled, "Resolution Recommending to the City Council Approval of a Rezoning from B-2
to Planned Unit Development (PUD), and of a General Concept Plan for Commercial and
Residential Uses as Requested by D.W. Jones, Inc.; Planning Case No. 477-97".
Commissioner Brasaemle suggested that contingencies need to be added to the
PUD document and/or resolution. The Commission concluded that contingencies
would need to be added that relate to traffic and the community image
(architectural
design the buildings). Director Sheldon suggested that pert _,
fat cr utecwi ai of the buildings).
the gasoline station could be backed up to the corner so that the pumps are interior
to the site and the outside is landscaped and bermed, putting more character into
the building and creating a more landmark-type building. The Commission also
added a contingency regarding minimizing impact on the wetland buffer, addressed
the concerns
with the wetland boundaries, and added that utilities be placed •
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
Special Meeting Page 19
•
underground. Director Sheldon assured the Planning Commission that once the
revisions have been made they would receive copies for their review and comment.
Mr. Black stated that he is in agreement with the PUD document with the
exception of the issue relative to trailways. He added that he feels this issue can
be brought up at the Council level.
The Planning Commission continued their discussion regarding what contingencies
should be added to this request. For the item in the PUD document regarding
wetland issues, Director Sheldon suggested that the following wording could be
used: "At the time of approval of these stipulations, the wetland boundary was not
set, that it will be set from the study that will be submitted at the development
review stage and that at that time, the City will evaluate whether the amount of
density allowed by this PUD needs to be adjusted to take into account a different
wetland boundary than what was available at the time of approval of the
stipulations", which may mean that the density will be reduced.
Commissioner Obert expressed that he feels the Highway 10-Area 9 study is very
important to the City and that this development is crucial in putting the program
• together.
Commissioner Stevenson commented that he believes the concern to be far
more than image of the gas station. He remarked that he hasn't forgotten letters
and citizen comments regarding their concern of adding another gas station to the
community. He believes the community's concern is the gas station use not just
the image.
Chair Peterson asked the audience of they had any additional concerns.
Mr. Ron Schmidt, Amoco Station, 2800 Highway 10, referred to the SRF Study,
Page 29. He asked if we are really considering the true spirit and intent of the
redevelopment goals which is to make a signature development for Section 9 and
are the goals of the study being addressed with this development.
Motion Carried: 3 ayes, 2 nays. Commissioner Stevenson expressed that he does not
feel the use proposed for the corner is the proper use for the PUD. Commissioner Obert
expressed that he feels the process should be slowed down so that they can make a
more informed decision. His main concern is with the architectural character of the
Section 9 corridor and that this would be the first development using the Section 9 study.
•
Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 1997
Special Meeting Page 20 •
8. Staff Reportllnformation Items
a. The Planning Commission Bylaws were not approved by the City Council.
They want revisions to the provision that would require Commissioner
applications to be referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation
before selecting candidates. Director Sheldon indicated she would have
revised language at their next meeting.
b. The ordinance regarding tall grass passed second reading without changes.
c. The ordinance regarding day cares in the business/industrial districts
passed second reading without changes.
d. Director Sheldon distributed materials received from the first session of the
U of M Design Course.
9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports
Members present at the April 2, 1997 regular meeting included Commissioners
Brooks, Johnston, Obert, Miller, Brasaemle, Stevenson and Chair Peterson. Also
present were Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson, Council Liaison
Koopmeiners and Recording Secretary Benesch. •
Members present at the April 2, 1997, agenda meeting (immediately following the
regular meeting) included: Commissioners, Johnston, Obert, Miller, Brasaemle,
Stevenson and Chair Peterson (Commissioner Brooks left the meeting at 10:10
p.m.) Also present were Director Sheldon, Planning Associate Ericson, Recording
Secretary Benesch and Council Liaison Koopmeiners.
Chair Peterson also reported that he and Commissioners Miller and Johnston
attended the Beyond the Basics class. He found it to be very valuable, with a lot of
new information. They also received materials on Comp Plan revisions which will
be provided to the other Commissioners at their next meeting.
4. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting
adjourned at 12:22 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,l
PijrnitiL
Pamela Sheldon
Community Development Director •
Minutes of the Economic Development Commission
• City of Mounds View
Ramsey County, Minnesota
Regular Meeting
July 24, 1997 AppRovED
City of Mounds View, Council Chambers
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 a.m. by Vice Chairperson, Cindy Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Members Cindy Carlson, Rosemary Goff, Ron Schmidt, Brian Sjoberg and Delane Welsch were
present. Dir. of Economic Development Cathy Bennett was present. Member Dan Nelson, EDA
Liaison Duane McCarty and Alternate Liaison Gary Quick were absent
3. Approval Of Minutes:
• Motion/Second: Goff/Sjoberg moved approval of Minutes from May 22, 1997.
Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays
4. Special Business
No Special Business.
5. EDC BUSINESS
A. Consideration of Tax Increment Request to Mounds View Family Apartments for the
Rehabilitation of Red Oak Apartments (Silver Lake Commons).
Director Bennett explained that the proposal has evolved over the past few months but the concept is
relatively the same as when this item was presented at the May meeting. The major difference is that
the new units is reduced from 28 to 16. Bennett proceeded to give a brief overview of the proposal
and the request to purchase EDA owned land and tax increment assistance. MSP is offering to
purchase the EDA owned land for the appraised value and is requesting a $230,000 deferred loan from
existing tax increment funds.
The commission discussed the history of the City owned property and reviewed the efforts made to
market the site for a commercial use. In addition, the commission discussed the study of the area
which suggested multifamily development of the site in connection with rehabilitation of the existing
apartments.
•
Director Bennett explained the structure of the proposal as an affordable housing project. This allows
the applicant to secure funds from MHFA, Ramsey County and Minneapolis Public Housing Agency.
. TIF Consultant Dave Marony explained that because there is a possibility that tenants may be
displaced the City should be concerned that adequate amount of dollars are set aside for relocation and
that a relocation plan be done by a professional relocation consultant.
Director Bennett mentioned that the proposal has gone through development review and was approved
by the Planning Commission at the July 16, 1997 meeting. The Council will vote on the
development proposal at the July 28th meeting and is holding a public hearing on the sale of the land.
Mr. Marony reviewed the sources and uses presented by the applicant per the EDC's request in May.
Mr. Marony explained the financing structure from Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Ramsey
County, Minneapolis Public Housing Agency and the City of Mounds View. He noted that although
the amount of the City loan is relatively small compared to the entire project size of$5 million, he
suggested that any support should be conditioned upon the applicant securing other sources of
financing and providing a relocation plan by a professional relocation consultant. Per State law for
use of TIF funds, this is seen as an acceptable of tax increment funds.
Per the EDC's request in May staff gathered additional information regarding the management of the
project. Danzeisen Properties has been hired to provide property management for the project. Staff
contacted references and received wonderful comments on Danzeisen Properties abilities to effectively
manage the property. Ms. Danzeisen gave an overview of how she manages property and answered
several questions.
The commission members asked the applicant several questions regarding density, children play area,
• crime, green space and noise abatement. The applicant explained that the project is much less dense
than is required, that they have created two play areas, quality management controls crime, that they
exceeded the required green space and any noise abatement required by MnDot would be covered by
the developer. Commissioner Goff wondered if the retention pond would be screened from Children.
The applicant responded that the play area is fenced. Commissioner Sjoberg asked more specifically
how the management would reduce the crime. Ms. Danzeisen explained tenant screening and strict
policies and she expects that crime will decrease by 90% after the project is fully complete.
Commissioner Carlson noted that this is a difficult project because of the level of public funding and
the first lenders investment will require quality construction and proper management. The need for a
market study was discussed. Commissioner Carlson wondered if requiring that an independent 3rd
party study be done is necessary. Mr. Marony suggested that the EDA may want the study for
assurances that there will be a payback on the loan. MSP Real Estate said it is a requirement for first
mortgage lender.
Commissioner Carlson reviewed the goals for improvement in this area- develop EDA owned land,
improve safety and improve aesthetics - and this project seems to meet these goals. Carlson asked
about the status of the first mortgage. MSP said that they have received a letter of intent from the
equity investor and first mortgage lender. Documentation should be final in September with closing in
October. The loan is a 9%, 30 year fully amortized loan. Carlson noted that when Western finances
this type of project they generally see acquisition costs of approximately$24,000 per unit (or less) on
older apartment buildings. This project contemplates a cost of$80,000 per unit (acquisition plus
rehab). The cost will exceed value for purposes of determining bank financing and thus the project will
require significant subsidy. This level of subsidy for housing seems common place in many urban
housing redevelopment projects.
•
Commissioner Welsch noted that he would like to see this project be a success. It would provide nice
110
new townhomes with a lot of money invested in the rehab of a distressed apartment complex. He sees
this as a benefit to the safety and aesthetics of the community.
There was much discussion regarding the relocation budget and assurances that enough funds are set
aside to cover any relocation of tenants.
Motion/Second: Welsch/Goff moved to recommend approval of the sale of EDA owned land for
$45,000 contingent upon the project moving forward.
Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays
Motion/Second: Welsch/Goff moved to recommend approval of the request for a $230,000 deferred
loan for 30years at 1%interest with interest accruing at the closing date and conditioned upon project
moving forward. If the relocation budget decreases the EDC would recommend a condition that the
left over go back to pay the loan after 24 months. In addition, a condition that the loan be paid in full
upon sale of the property.
Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays
B. Discussion of Loan Program for Rehabilitation of Manufactured Homes
Deferred to next meeting
Sc. Information Regarding Highway 10 Design Theme RFP
Deferred to next meeting.
6. Reports From Chair, Commissioners and Staff:
No Reports
7. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Commission, this meeting of the Economic Development
Commission adjourned at 9:18 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Director o - conomic Development
el
1