Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-20-2006 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting December 20, 2006 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Chair Stevenson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. December 20, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson, Commissioners Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, and Miller. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Scotch and Zwirn Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson, Planning Associate Heller, Economic Development Coordinator Backman ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Presentation: Premium Stop Redevelopment Area Study 2 Review Planning Commission Applications 6 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes November 15, 2006. MOTION/SECOND: Meehlhause/Miller. To approve the Minutes of the November 15, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases None _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Presentation: Premium Stop Redevelopment Area Study Community Development Director Ericson presented the draft plans for the Premium Stop Redevelopment Area prepared by DSU/Bonestroo. He explained the Mounds View Economic Development Authority (EDA) acquired the Premium Stop parcel in June 2006. He reported the property located at 2390 County Road 10 had fallen into significant disrepair and therefore the City felt compelled to take action or face its continued operation as an independent gas station with multiple violations and a very unappealing appearance onto the corridor. Director Ericson explained the City recognized the potential of the property and realized it would be best to look proactively into the future. He pointed out that because an agreement could not be reached as to what redevelopment was possible or how the land from County Road H2 to Woodale should be used, the City Council decided to hire a private consultant. Director Ericson indicated DSU/Bonestroo put together a plan that, if approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, provides a framework or guidebook as to how the area could be redeveloped. He explained it puts the City in a position to react to development proposals consistent with the plan and the City’s vision for this area. Director Ericson explained DSU/Bonestroo developed five concepts. He stated phasing is possible and it makes sense to start with the City’s parcel. He informed the Planning Commission that the consultant recommends waiting until marketing conditions improve and the Medtronic and Arden Hills development plans come to fruition. Director Ericson presented the plans for the Planning Commission to evaluate and make recommendations to the City Council. He mentioned the plans would be presented to the residents to glean feedback and recommendations for the City Council to give Staff marching orders to bring in developers. Director Ericson began with Concept A that shows a one story, 5,000 square foot building that could be used for office and/or retail space. He mentioned it is close to the highway with a wide area that makes it look larger than it is. He indicated the consultant felt bringing the building closer to County Road 10 would make the corridor more pedestrian friendly by creating a link to the neighborhood and redevelop the property in such a way as to create synergy with the Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ properties to the south. Director Ericson mentioned Concept A would not affect the current Japanese restaurant. He pointed out a possible location for the shared access and a stormwater feature. He stated Concept A provides the opportunity for meaningful redevelopment along the corridor. Director Ericson displayed Concept B and pointed out the addition of a two-story 10,000 square foot building at the corner of County Road 10 and County Road H2. He stated this plan would require cooperation and easements with the adjacent Japanese restaurant. He indicated the Japanese restaurant would remain, however façade improvements would be required, parking would be reconfigured to create shared parking opportunities, access would be maintained from Greenfield Avenue, and a new right-in/right-out only access drive along County Road 10 would be added. Director Ericson presented Concept C-1 that shows expanding the 5,000 square foot building to 8,000 square feet and relocating the existing Japanese restaurant into this expanded space. He pointed out there would be 84 shared parking stalls located behind the buildings that front County Road 10, a reconfigured parking lot with two driveway accesses to Greenfield Avenue, landscaped islands, and parking lot edges to screen the parking. Director Ericson explained with an additional property, a new 40-unit senior condominium complex could be developed and/or 13 townhome units. He further stated a public park with connections to residential neighborhoods and County Road 10 was an option. He explained the desire is to reshape and redevelop this lot as a buffer from County Road 10 and County Road H2 into the neighborhood. He stated the big difference is that this area becomes residential rather than commercial. Director Ericson displayed Concept C-2 stating it extends the development farther to the southeast, carrying on the theme and design of the previous two buildings. He indicated it would provide close access to the trail ways and an opportunity to tie into neighborhoods to the south. He stated the possibility to provide access to O’Connell Drive exists in the future if the residents were in favor of this. Director Ericson exhibited Concept D-1 explaining it is the more long-range option that shows a residential redevelopment at the southeast corner where presently four single-family homes exist. He explained Concept D-1 shows a residential type of use with 20 townhomes and a three-story, 60-unit multi family property. Director Ericson stated Concept D-1 shows a residential use not too out of character with what is to the south. He indicated there seems to be an emphasis to keep it as a corporate office or office/industrial space similar to the other side of County Road 10. Director Ericson displayed Concept D–2 with the corporate office campus concept with two buildings equaling a total of 60,000 square feet and two stories in height. He stated this theme continues with connections through the campus from the single-family neighborhood to Woodale with streetscape improvements and access directly onto Woodale. He indicated this concept offers a buffer for the residents on O’Connell Drive. Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson explained Concept E includes the potential of doing the Roberts site, coming down four more lots, pushing O’Connell Drive through to Edgewood Drive, closing off Greenfield, and access to County Road 10 from Jeffery Drive. He pointed out this option would close off Greenfield and capture the area as a larger residential redevelopment site. He explained the City would not want to do that if residents on Greenfield did not support it. Director Ericson expressed Staff feels these concepts provide the City with ideas and a vision. He stated the next step is to seek comments and feedback from residents. He explained this is new ground for the City in that it is the first step in dealing with a situation proactively. Chair Stevenson commended the effort, stating this is what the Planning Commission would also like to see. He commented this is looking forward instead of reacting to a developer taking a property without considering the City’s ideas. He stated he has no negative response to any of the proposals and could envision any of the scenarios. Chair Stevenson stressed that because these are phases they could all be done together or one phase at a time. Director Ericson replied the City owns one acre of the 12 acres discussed and the property owners located in the triangle area near Woodale and County Road 10 could come forward with a developer and state they like the plans. He said if it is something City Council feels is the vision for the property, it does not matter who goes first. Commissioner Meehlhause agreed with the comments he heard, however, he questioned whether more townhomes are needed given the two townhome developments currently under way. He indicated that if the new townhomes sell quickly or if they take three to five years to complete, that should dictate the direction for additional townhomes. Director Ericson replied next year may dictate what happens as to whether it makes sense to add more townhomes or if there is a better use to consider. He indicated businesses are coming, but so too are townhomes and residential units. He stated the City needs to start looking at supporting businesses that meet the needs of the residents not only directly in Mounds View, but in surrounding communities as well. Commissioner Hegland asked if anyone looked at, as residences are added versus business, what it would take tax wise or tax base to support it with infrastructure and services to keep the City viable relative to its financial commitments. He suggested a plan be developed to address what mix it would take for the City of Mounds View to support the mix it has. He indicted the City is highly developed and this area is an opportunistic piece of property to give this mix a chance to happen. Commissioner Hegland stated this is good planning, but a step to look at the tax base is also needed. Economic Development Coordinator Backman addressed the Planning Commission and explained that at the EDA meeting on December 11, 2006, questions were asked on what it would cost relative to the infrastructure. He indicated the only plan that significantly impacts roads is Concept E. He stressed the nice thing is these plans are scalable. Coordinator Backman Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ mentioned in terms of what would be a potential mix, he contacted six developers regarding this project, and the comment made is they see this area as an opportunity for commercial, retail, restaurants, or a commercial building of 20,000 square feet. He explained that this is what the people on the real estate end are saying. Coordinator Backman mentioned he agreed with Commissioner Meehlhause as to how many townhomes could be built. He indicated that given the location on County Road 10, there might be some attraction on the retail side. Coordinator Backman mentioned he invited individuals from the development community to come to the EDA meeting and three did attend. He stated he would follow up with them to ascertain what their interest levels are, what questions they have, and if they would like contact information as the majority of the property is privately owned. Coordinator Backman indicated there was some foresight on the Hidden Hollow project where proposals were requested from three development groups. He stated the Planning Commission and the City Council looked at the options and because of the process, the City came out with a better project that fulfilled the development concepts at that time. Commissioner Meehlhause suggested an ice cream store be considered. Coordinator Backman replied he had a discussion with a premium ice cream store and is trying to encourage them to move to Mounds View. Commissioner Miller asked Coordinator Backman if he foresees concerns with people farther down along County Road 10 and the use of eminent domain. Coordinator Backman replied Mounds View has taken a cautious approach to eminent domain. He stated this has not been the orientation of the Mounds View City Council. He stated the City much prefers a voluntary sale of property and all previous transactions along County Road 10 were on a voluntary basis. Coordinator Beckman stated this lends itself to a better relationship with the property owners who want to be a part of the community. Director Ericson mentioned he did not want to imply that the City has not been proactive in the past. He stated that were it not for the foresight of Coordinator Backman, there would not have been the high level of development with Hidden Hollow. Director Ericson commented, in terms of looking forward, the comments, thoughts, and concern with the cost is good as Mounds View is heavy towards residential. He stated it does make sense to develop industrial options where feasible. He indicated it is something to consider as the taxes hit residential property owners harder without commercial development in the community. Director Ericson commented anything developed now is icing as the infrastructure is already in place. Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson commented he would let the Planning Commission know when this is presented to the residents. He stated that as it moves forward, the Planning Commission would be included in the process. B. Review Planning Commission Applications Community Development Director Ericson reported there are four openings on the Planning Commission; three terms have expired and Commissioner Hull was elected to the City Council. He stated applications were requested via advertisements in the newspapers and the website. He reported seven applications were received for the Planning Commission. He explained that typically the board reviews the applications and present who they feel would be the best candidates to the City Council. Director Ericson stated this is an opportunity for the candidates to appear before the Planning Commission to answer questions. He listed the applicants as: Mr. Todd Lang, Mr. Keith Cramblit, Ms. Sherry Gunn, Ms. Gabriela Kulp, Ms. Mari Scotch, Ms. Laurie Shoop, and Ms. Mary Kay Walsh-Kaczmarek. He instructed the Planning Commission to vote for four individuals to present to the City Council. He explained the City Council would look at the applications and take under consideration the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson called Mr. Keith Cramblit to the podium. Mr. Keith Cramblit, 5753 Bunker Hill Drive, stated he has been a resident of Mounds View for six and one half years. He stated he has a wife and three daughters. He indicted he should be considered as a candidate for the Planning Commission because in his professional career he is a civil engineer technician and familiar with the type of plans that come before the Commission. Chair Stevenson asked Mr. Cramblit if he would be over logged with working in his civil engineering career all day and then having to deal with it again at the Planning Commission. Mr. Cramblit replied he would not. Commissioner Hegland asked Mr. Cramblit to talk about why he wants to be on the Planning Commission. Mr. Cramblit responded he wanted to get more involved in the community. Commissioner Miller asked if he watched the Planning Commission meetings on TV. Mr. Cramblit replied he did not have Cable TV, however, he keeps track of the meetings, agendas, and minutes online. Commissioner Meehlhause asked Mr. Cramblit what his thoughts were on approving variances. Mr. Cramblit replied it depends on the situation and the need for the variance. Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland asked if he had specific items he would like to see addressed. Mr. Cramblit replied he did not, but likes the proposal presented tonight by Community Development Director Ericson. Chair Stevenson thanked Mr. Cramblit and called Mr. Todd Langdon to the podium. Mr. Todd Lang, 2558 Ridge Lane, addressed the Commission and stated he, his wife, and two children have lived in Mounds View for three years. He reported he is organized and objective and a structural engineer with a consulting firm in the metro area. He reported his particular area of expertise is bridge engineering. He stated he is interested in a position on the Planning Commission because it is important for the community to be involved in City government as this is how to get the best representation of what the community wants, what they believe, and what they think. He stated he views the best use of his skills would be on the Planning Commission. He indicated he does not deal with developments or civil works, but in his position, he deals with codes and believes he has something to add with his skills. Commissioner Miller stated she liked his comments that he is organized and objective. Mr. Lang replied he tries to be and believes that is what goes on in the Planning Commission meetings with sorting out the important from the unimportant and is the basis for decisions. Commissioner Miller asked if he watches the Planning Commission meetings on TV. Mr. Lang stated he has tried, but it is hard with two children, so he attends the meetings on occasion. Commissioner Meehlhause asked Mr. Lang how he feels about granting or denying variances. Mr. Lang replied it is important that the City has codes. He indicated that with his background in understanding codes and their intent and when it is reasonable to vary from the code, he is comfortable with codes and would bring valuable input into those discussions. Commissioner Hegland asked Mr. Lang if there are issues he would like the Planning Commission to address. Mr. Lang replied he liked the presentation from Community Development Director Ericson in that there is a plan and vision to go forward when deciding what is best for the community and deciding what developments are right for the community. He stated he would like to see more preplanning. Director Ericson stated he would let the other applicants know the Commission appointments will go before the City Council on January 2, 2007. Mounds View Planning Commission December 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ The Planning Commissioners voted for their top four candidates. Director Ericson reported Mr. Todd Lang, Mr. Keith Cramblit, Ms. Sherry Gunn, and Ms. Mari Scotch were selected for recommendation to the City Council. He extended an opportunity to all applicants to appear before the City Council on January 2, 2007. Director Ericson stated that any applicant not chosen for the Planning Commission would be considered for the openings on the Park Commission if they would consider that possibility. Chair Stevenson asked if there were other commissions with seats available. Director Ericson replied the Charter Commission has positions open. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. January 10, 2007. This is the second Wednesday of January. B. January 24, 2007. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:07 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.