Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-2005 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Miller at 7:00 p.m. September 21, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, and Scotch Absent and Excused: Commissioner Stevenson Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson, Planning Associate Heller, and Economic Development Coordinator Backman ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case DE2005-003. Consideration of a Development Review for a Single Story Office Building. 02 Planning Case MI2005-007. Consideration of a Minor Subdivision Request – Lot Line Adjustment. 04 Planning Case MA2005-001. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Review and Rezoning Associated with SYSCO Second Addition. 04 Planning Case MA2005-002 and PD2005-002. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Review, Rezoning, and Development Stage Plan Review Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project. 06 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes August 17, 2005. Mounds View Planning Commission September 21, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Meehlhause. To approve the Minutes of the August 17, 2005 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes –6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case DE2005-003. Consideration of a Development Review for a Single Story Office Building Planning. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, Dr. Greg Belting, Silverview Chiropractic Center, is requesting a development review approval for the proposed 8,300 square foot single story office building at 2395 County Road 10. The City approved an amendment to the Walgreens PUD in July of 2005 to permit “office” as an allowable use on this site. Director Ericson stated parking requirements are 50 stalls, whereby the site plan indicates 43 stalls with the remaining seven stalls available on the adjacent Walgreens site, as was originally the plan. Building setbacks are in excess of the minimum. The Walgreens PUD requires that the building shall be of high-quality masonry construction using brick and brick accents to match the Community Center, theater, and City Hall. There are areas on the site in which snow may be plowed and piled in the winter. The City Forester has approved the landscape requirements with the recommendation of swapping some types of plantings. Staff will review a signage permit to ensure consistency with both the PUD and Municipal Code. The site was master graded during construction of the Walgreens building and a large stormwater pond installed southeast of the site. An easement originally platted with the Mounds View City Hall Addition will be vacated. Director Ericson noted the proposed office use on the undeveloped parcel would be consistent with the City’s Zoning Code and Comp Plan and would bring development and tax base to the site. He referenced the resolution conditions and recommended the Planning Commission approve the development review. Acting Chair Miller asked if Dr. Belting had any comments. Dr. Belting stated the City has been great to work with and he is trying to provide a nice building for the community. He added the front of the building will be brick but questioned if the entire building needs to be brick. Tom Belting, brother of Dr. Belting, also questioned the other three building sides being brick. He suggested these three sides would be maintenance free aluminum siding with additional landscaping if needed. He added the brick would tie in with neighboring buildings. Mounds View Planning Commission September 21, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Acting Chair Miller asked if the proposed exterior mix of brick and siding meets with what is in the resolution. Director Ericson stated no, the PUD document requires all four sides to have consistent architectural treatment; that is why Walgreens’ exterior is entirely brick. He noted this issue was not discussed prior to the meeting. He added if the applicant wishes to deviate from the PUD an amendment could be requested. Acting Chair Miller asked about handicap spots. She also asked about park dedication fees. Director Ericson stated there are two handicap spots on the site plan, which is consistent with ADA requirements. He added no park dedication fees are required because they were collected when Walgreens was built. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the back of the proposed building faces the Community Center, suggesting if it is visible the building should be brick on all four sides. Director Ericson stated the Community Center is to the north of the proposed building so one side would be facing it. Acting Chair Miller asked about windows on the side facing the Community Center. Dr. Belting stated there are windows. He added most office buildings have a front facade and maintenance free siding on the rest of the building. He suggested adding additional landscaping. Commissioner Scotch stated she likes the architectural design and noted brick on all four sides would be expensive. Dr. Belting confirmed that it would be more expensive and heavier looking, too. He presented an example of the brick that would be used. Commissioner Scotch asked when they would be breaking ground. Dr. Belting replied November 1, 2005. Commissioner Meehlhause asked about approving the resolution with some type of variance. Director Ericson replied the Commission could forward its recommendation to Council with a siding recommendation. Commissioner Hull asked what would look better cosmetically. Director Ericson stated all four sides the same with brick, which was the original intent, looks richer and classier. Commissioner Hegland asked if there needs to be a formal request for a siding change. Director Ericson stated a formal request could be submitted, but Council has the latitude to grant something different than originally approved. Acting Chair Miller stated brick siding is part of the original agreement and suggested the Commission stay with that. She suggested the resolution be passed as written and let Council make any changes they want. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Zwirn. To approve Resolution 817-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Development Review for a Single Story Office Building; Planning Case No. DE2005-003. Mounds View Planning Commission September 21, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Ayes –6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Acting Chair Miller recessed the meeting at 7:20 p.m. due to severe weather. Acting Chair Miller reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case MI2005-007. Consideration of a Minor Subdivision Request – Lot Line Adjustment. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, James Benson, 8123 Pleasant View Court and 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court, is requesting a minor subdivision to move the common lot line of 8123 Pleasant View Court south 33.80 feet to meet the most southeasterly corner of 817-8119 Pleasant View Court. He added because no new lots are created by this subdivision and no additional development would occur, no park dedication fees should be required. Director Ericson stated that given no new development would occur, a public notice is not required. He recommended the Commission approve the minor subdivision as requested. Commissioner Acting Chair Miller stated the subdivision request seems to be straightforward. She requested a wording correction from “applicants” to “applicant” on Resolution 816-05, page 2, numbers 1 and 2. Director Ericson replied the corrections would be made. He added the request would be on the October 10, 2005 Council agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Zwirn. To approve Resolution 816-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision Request – Lot Line Adjustment; Planning Case No. MI2005-007. Ayes –6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case MA2005-001. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Review and Rezoning Associated with SYSCO Second Addition. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, SYSCO Minnesota, represented by Phil Seipp, President, is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the SYSCO Second Addition major subdivision and the rezoning of the land transferred to SYSCO. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the existing zoning of the property, and the Planning Commission and Council reviewed and approved an amendment to the PUD to allow for the expanded development area. Director Ericson stated preliminary plat revisions include a possible vacate of the residual Long Lake Road right of way from when Long Lake Road terminated at County Road J, before Mounds View Planning Commission September 21, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Highway 10 was constructed. Utilities within the residual right of way would continue to be protected by a utility easement. An easement over a wetland area will need to be partially vacated, as the new lot line would bisect the easement. He noted an issue with the City’s AUAR whereby the Met Council and EDA are requesting an amendment to detach the three acres from the lot. He suggested an addition to the resolution under “Now, Therefore, Be It Further Resolved” stating the AUAR needs to be consistent with the original document. Director Ericson requested the Planning Commission review and consider the SYSCO Second Addition preliminary plat and proposed rezoning. Acting Chair Miller asked where is the addition to the resolution. She requested a correction on Resolution 813-05, page 2, number 1, under “Be It Further Resolved” to delete “be” in the last sentence. Director Ericson stated the addition is on page 2, after “Be It Further Resolved”. He added the correction would be made. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the proposed right of way to be vacated is being utilized. He suggested if it were vacated, SYSCO would have the right to utilize it. Director Ericson stated there are utilities within the space and SYSCO could utilize the area. Commissioner Zwirn asked how the TIF financing is allocated. He stated during the process of deeding back land there was no discussion of developing the parcel or of TIF financing. Director Ericson stated the EDA authorized a two-year TIF project, which provides $250,000 in financing paid over two years. He added that requesting TIF to assist with stormwater improvements and other documented expenses was always part of the project. Acting Chair Miller asked for comments from SYSCO. Chris Carda, RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd., stated within the Bridges AUAR, the wetland mitigation plan defined no wetland impacts in these three acres requesting to be returned to SYSCO. However, the Met Council recently noted there is a half-acre impact within these acres. He added the acreage is not being removed from the AUAR but needs to show an impact. He noted there is no process to remove an area from an AUAR; however, the document needs to be amended to be consistent. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the Commission approves the recommended amendment, do they agree to the impact of the wetland. He also asked if there would be an exchange of land. Mr. Carda replied the rules and regulations of the Rice Creek Watershed District must be followed. He noted the request is to approve amending the AUAR stating there is wetland impact in this area. He added there would be an exchange of land; the plan is to mitigate these wetlands according to the Wetland Conservation Act. Phil Seipp, President, stated connecting Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2, does not bring value to SYSCO. Mounds View Planning Commission September 21, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch asked what is on the property and can it be built on. Mr. Seipp replied nothing is on the property and nothing could likely be built on it. Commissioner Zwirn stated the parcel could be paved for additional parking. Mr. Seipp agreed. Commissioner Scotch noted there are water mains underneath and questioned whether it could be paved over. Mr. Seipp confirmed the presence of a water and natural gas main. Commissioner Hegland asked if there are any plans to use this parcel. Mr. Seipp replied no. Commissioner Scotch stated she did not know about TIF. Acting Chair Miller stated financing is not the Commission’s responsibility. Commissioner Zwirn asked when they would be allocating the TIF funds. Mr. Seipp replied because of issues such as wetland mitigation and providing access to the City on the west side ponding area, in order to get approval from corporate, he felt if they could hold down their costs to approximately one million it would be approved. Commissioner Hegland asked if there were extra costs equivalent to the TIF funds. Mr. Carda replied the cost for wetland impacts and stormwater ponding is close to $300,000. Commissioner Scotch noted no park dedication fees have been applied and feels there should be some applied. Mr. Carda replied during development in 1989 SYSCO gave 46 acres to the City, in addition to paying a Park Dedication Fee. Commissioner Zwirn noted concerns regarding SYSCO coming to the City and asking for TIF, but not paying any park dedication fees because land was given to the City. Director Ericson noted it was always the position of SYSCO to ask for TIF, adding that it is not the Commission’s responsibility to review or approve TIF financing. The City Council felt park dedication fees were not necessary since the City was given land. MOTION/SECOND: Meehlhause/Hull. To approve Resolution 813-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Preliminary Plat Review and Rezoning Associated with SYSCO Second Addition with the added Further Be It Resolved; Planning Case No. MA2005-001. Ayes –6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Planning Case MA2005-002 and PD2005-002. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Review, Rezoning, and Development Stage Plan Review Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, Medtronic, Inc., is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and development stage plans of the Medtronic PUD. The development is a multi-phased project with the first phase encompassing Mounds View Planning Commission September 21, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ approximately 820,000 square feet of office space and related ancillary uses. There remains four distinct eight-story buildings but they are now all oriented in an east-west fashion to enhance environmental sustainability. He reviewed the three different phases in terms of buildings, parking, and square footage. Director Ericson noted the buildings will be no closer than 80 feet to Highway 10 and no closer than 60 feet to Coral Sea Street and 82 Lane NE. The City Forester approved the variety and locations of plantings. Much of the existing golf course trail system will be preserved and tied back to the facility, including the boardwalk through the primary wetland. The City intends to explore construction of a separate trail system within the SYSCO Outlot area which residents, Medtronic employees, SYSCO employees, and others could utilize. Only one wetland in the project area will be impacted. Medtronic has applied for a stormwater permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District. All utilities will be installed underground. A sign plan has not yet been submitted for review. He noted all of the PUD evaluation criteria have been satisfied. He added with approval of this resolution Medtronic could continue to phase 2 without another approval. Director Ericson referenced the preliminary plat noting there are four lots, and Outlot A, and a possible sixth lot which would encompass the first phase parking ramp north of the phase 1 buildings. The perimeter drainage and utility easements will be taken with the plat, although the exact dimensions and locations are yet to be determined. No internal road system will be needed; however, there is excess right of ways that is proposed for vacation. Park dedication fees of $865,000 were agreed upon during contract negotiations. The City must consider a rezoning of the project area from the existing Light Industrial (l-1) designation to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Director Ericson stated there are no compelling adverse effects associated with this project. He requested the Planning Commission review and consider the development stage plan, the CRM preliminary plat, and approval of a rezoning from l-1 to PUD. He reminded the Commission not to take into account their support, or lack of, tax increment financing, the land sale price, or actions conducted by others who do not support the project. Acting Chair Miller requested wording corrections to Resolution 815-05; second line, first page “a” instead of “an” and on the last page, section d, second line, “Subdivision” instead of “Subdivisions”. Director Ericson replied the corrections would be made. Acting Chair Miller asked about garbage. She also asked about a fire access road. She added she likes the idea of the relocated judicial ditch. Dan Dixon, OPUS Architects & Engineers, Inc., replied in phase 1 they are proposing a service area in the loop which will have compactors, garbage bins, etc. Mr. Dixon added there is a 20-foot wide road beyond the service entrance for fire access that is not a service drive. Commissioner Hegland asked about adding sewer and water supplies on Highway 10. Director Ericson replied utilities are available from Blaine, but the City felt they should be responsible for providing these services. He referenced the site plan showing two 12-inch water mains, which Mounds View Planning Commission September 21, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ would be looped through the system to provide fresh water. He added the standard process is to bore under Highway 10, which is the conventional means to provide utilities without disrupting traffic. An informal cost study was done regarding the feasibility of providing these utilities and the City felt it was beneficial to provide utilities to the site. Commissioner Hegland asked what is the return on investment. Commissioner Scotch referenced Director Ericson’s comments regarding the Commission’s responsibility to review just the plan issues and asked if the Commission is supposed to discuss money or investments. Commissioner Hegland stated he was asking how the analysis was done, not about dollars. Commissioner Scotch stated the project came before the Commission without a PUD and now is back for approval with a PUD. She added the Commission needs to know what dollars are being generated for the City. Director Ericson replied a feasibility report would be done; it is part of the plan submittal. He noted the role of the Commission is to review planning activities, not financial matters. Commissioner Scotch stated she is disappointed because previous discussions included some type of park project but now it is not possible because of wetlands. Director Ericson responded that a feasibility study would be necessary to assess the viability of installing a trailway; he did not suggest such an improvement would not be possible. Acting Chair Miller opened the cases for public comment at 8:49 p.m. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated he was on the City Council as Mayor in the 1980s. He referenced the Met Council and Land Act roles. He added the Commission has a fiduciary mission that approved projects will be cost efficient. Barb Haake, 3024 County Road I, asked how many acres encompasses phase 1 with the parking lot. She indicated the development agreement signed on August 31 does not include a phase 2 or 3. There is $150,000 dedicated to the SYSCO Outlot for trails or other improvements, will the rest of the $865,000 park dedication fees go to the City for other uses. She asked about the traffic study by AUAR, indicating nothing specifies what happens with traffic through the City. She asked if, when rezoning, the Commission would hold a public hearing for comments. Director Ericson replied phase 1 is 27.77 acres of land. He stated nothing prohibits the City from spending all $865,000 in park dedication fees on the SYSCO Outlot area. He noted the City Code does not require the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing, and that it is scheduled for the October 10 City Council meeting. Mr. McCarty stated the documents have changed in so many ways. He requested clarification regarding sanitary sewer and water service, noting he is unaware of any solid engineering feasibility study or estimate to extend under Highway 10. He added he would be more Mounds View Planning Commission September 21, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ comfortable dealing with solid numbers from professionals which the Commission does not have. He noted the plan estimate is $400,000 but believes it would be much higher. He noted water for fire suppression, fresh water, and sanitary sewer are TIF eligible up to $400,000. If the end result is more expensive than TIF will produce, the contract previously signed will allow the company to use other funds. He added he is not sure this will not put the City in a bind in the future. He noted once the utilities are done Medtronic turns all infrastructures over to the City. If breakdowns occur the City must fix the problem out of the general fund. Mr. McCarty referenced the Staff report, page 7, and asked how much of the east side will be maintained as open space. He suggested it state “have a permanent open space easement” because the current wording suggests there are no guarantees. He added it was always inferred that the 35 and County Road J bridge would be improved; however, according to page 9 of the Staff report it is not going to happen so where will traffic go. He stated he does not know how a decision on this issue can be made tonight. Director Ericson stated regarding the utilities, the City would be responsible up to the property line. He added Medtronic would pay all improvement costs beyond the property line. Mr. McCarty stated yes, for installation and construction but who pays after that? Director Ericson stated it would be private. Commissioner Scotch asked when phase 2 is expected to start. Jim Driessen, Medtronic Inc., replied there is no timeline; it is based on growth. The Commission is being asked to review the full build out because the total plan is being presented now. Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated in terms of water and sewer, there have been discussions with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates regarding boring under Highway 10; Medtronic is committing $400,000 on their side, and the City would be committing $400,000. He added there are connections that need to be made on some roads south of Highway 10. They could upgrade to well 4, but public works indicated there is sufficient capacity and there should be no need to upgrade. A feasibility study is needed but should not be done if the project is not going forward. Commissioner Zwirn asked how the studies were done. Coordinator Backman replied they contacted the Met Council and Bonestroo which looked at capacities and provided a written estimate. Commissioner Hegland asked about a maintenance study and what would be the cost per year. Commissioner Zwirn asked if preliminary reports provided any cautions or problems. Coordinator Backman replied he is unsure what are the soil conditions. He added the borings have been done but not until the project starts can they tell if there are problems. Commissioner Scotch stated she assumes the City would be responsible if something goes wrong. Mounds View Planning Commission September 21, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. McCarty asked for a copy of the report from Bonestroo. He also asked what the casing of well 4 told and if it was televised. He added in 1982 there was a crack in the well and it was shut down because the water was becoming contaminated. He noted in terms of the utilities, unless the ordinance has changed, the company is responsible for connections from the building to the curb stop and everything else belongs to the City. Director Ericson replied the feasibility study was done, but he is not prepared to address issues with well 4. Commissioner Hegland asked, regarding action tonight, if the financial analysis is a requirement for approval. Director Ericson replied based on a review of code and previous cases, he believes there is sufficient documentation to make a decision and the specific financials are not a prerequisite to action. Commissioner Hegland asked who is responsible for the financial part. Director Ericson replied City Council. Commissioner Hegland stated he agrees. He added the Commission should not ignore this part and should prepare this information for the Council. Commissioner Zwirn stated reminders of Commission responsibility with regard to the Medtronic project disturb him. Director Ericson replied it is justifiable to confirm what is the role of the Commission. He added Council has had concerns with Commission comments regarding items such as the land sale, which strayed from the Commission’s role and responsibility. Commissioner Scotch stated she has the right to request information needed on which to base a decision. She added she hopes the City is not making a bad decision. Acting Chair Miller closed the cases for public comment at 9:15 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Scotch. To deny Resolution 815-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Preliminary Plat Review, Rezoning, and Development Stage Plan Review Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project; Planning Case No. MA2005-002 and PD2005-002. Ayes – 2 (Scotch, Zwirn) Nays – 3 (Hull, Meehlhause, Miller) Abstain – 1 (Hegland) Motion failed. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 815-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Preliminary Plat Review, Rezoning, and Development Stage Plan Review Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project; Planning Case No. MA2005-002 and PD2005-002. Ayes – 3 (Hull, Meehlhause, Miller) Nays – 3 (Hegland, Scotch, Zwirn) Motion failed. Director Ericson asked since the Commission neither approved nor denied the resolution, was there something that Staff can bring back to the Commission to address concerns. Mounds View Planning Commission September 21, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland requested a definition of financial analysis and the role of the Planning Commission. He also requested more information regarding the utility issues. Director Ericson replied some data could be provided but there is insufficient time to prepare a feasibility study. Commissioner Zwirn requested a copy of the final signed contract. Director Ericson replied he would bring that. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: October 5, 2005 ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session ______________________________________________________________________________ There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Cheryl Felix TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.