Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-05-2005 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 5, 2005 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. October 5, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson, Planning Associate Heller, City Attorney Riggs ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Cases MA2005-002 and PD2005-002. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Review, Rezoning and Development Stage Plan Review Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project. 02 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes September 7, 2005. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Scotch. To approve the Minutes of the September 7, 2005 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Review of Commission Roles and Responsibilities. Community Development Director Ericson stated during the last meeting questions were raised regarding the Commission’s responsibilities. He added Scott Riggs, City Attorney, is present tonight to clarify responsibilities and answer any questions. Mr. Riggs handed out a few different pieces of pertinent information. He reviewed the handouts and memorandum indicating the Commission is an advisory body to City Council and reviews items such as zoning and plats and recommends final approval to Council; these items do not include fiscal issues such as TIF. The single exception to this is the requirement for the Planning Commission to determine whether new TIF plans or modifications to existing TIF plans would be consistent with the City’s adopted Comp Plan. Commissioner Hegland stated that about a month ago the Planning Commission had to make a decision regarding a tax increment financing plan. He asked Attorney Riggs whether this was the one exception to which he was referring. Attorney Riggs stated that was correct. Commission Hegland continued, stating that when the plan was before the Commission, he was unsure as to what the Commission’s responsibility was, in that the Commission was simply presented the TIF plan and they had no idea if it satisfied the criteria or not, or what the criteria were by which it should be judged. Attorney Riggs responded by suggesting that the only question that Commission had to answer when presented with the TIF plan, or any TIF plan modification, is whether the project as proposed and the TIF plan that goes with that project fit within the confines of the Comp Plan. Commissioner Scotch stated she disagrees and read some language from Minnesota Statutes. She added if a plan involves economic development why wouldn’t the Commission want to know about dollars. Mr. Riggs replied the comp plan has been adopted and now the Commission is applying it. He added fiscal implications are not there for the Commission to analyze. Commissioner Scotch referenced a book she received at the beginning of her term on the Commission. She added she feels up to this point she has made good decisions, has the right to her own opinion, and in making decisions the whole picture needs to be looked at. Commissioner Zwirn stated sometimes the Commission is not given all the facts. Commissioner Scotch asked why a contract is being signed without a PUD in place. Mr. Riggs replied the developer is going through the planning process at this time. He added the City is following the process it has used in the past; there has been no deviation from policy or process. Commissioner Scotch questioned Mr. Riggs’ information. She added she would take the provided information into consideration for the agenda item tonight. Mr. Riggs replied he is Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 _____________________________________________________________________________ providing applicable laws and does not know the specifics of what has previously been discussed regarding Medtronic. Commissioner Scotch stated since he is the City attorney he should be familiar with the issues that are before the City. She added many citizens feel Council did not do a good job on the Medtronic project. Commissioner Hegland asked for confirmation that the comp plan is what the Commission is gauging projects on. He noted his prior question was if the TIF plan was in compliance with the comp plan, because they did not have that information. Mr. Riggs replied that the TIF plan and the project it would support would simply need to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, reiterating that the Commission is not involved in any of the City’s fiscal activities. Commissioner Stevenson stated he feels Mr. Riggs has clarified a few issues. Commissioner Miller stated the handouts are very useful. Mr. Riggs replied that was the intent. He added he is open to questions in the future. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Cases MA2005-002 and PD2005-002. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Review, Rezoning and Development Stage Plan Review Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project. Commissioner Stevenson asked for clarification regarding the fact that one resolution was drafted for several items. He added that while each item is clearly broken down within the resolution, usually there are separate resolutions. Director Ericson replied that in the past different actions have been presented in separate resolutions, however, for this one it is not necessary because the Commission would be recommending approval or denial to Council as a whole. Commissioner Stevenson asked for a general consensus from the commission on the grouping of the actions into one Resolution and, upon receiving consensus, stated the items will be acted on together. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, Medtronic, Inc., is requesting approval of the preliminary plat and development stage plans of the Medtronic PUD. The approved development, which has not changed, is a multi-phased project totaling 1,500,000 square feet in four connected, east-west oriented buildings. He reviewed the three different phases in terms of buildings, parking, and square footage. Director Ericson referenced the PUD noting only one wetland in the project area will be impacted. The judicial ditch will be realigned away from the building to alongside Highway 10 in a wider, more natural, meandering channel. Two new stormwater ponds will be created and an existing pond expanded to accommodate the run off on site. Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 _____________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson referenced the preliminary plat noting there are four lots, an outlot and a possible sixth lot which would encompass the first phase parking ramp north of the phase 1 buildings. The City must consider a rezoning of the project area from the existing Light Industrial (l-1) designation to Planned Unit Development (PUD), which would be consistent with the comp plan. 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 I-1 to PUD. He passed out a summary plan for the reconstruction of County Road J, which would handle future traffic volumes. Commissioner Miller referenced the resolution where it states “subject to the following conditions” and asked who checks those. Director Ericson replied either Staff reviews code or it is reflected on the preliminary plat. Commissioner Stevenson asked if on page 1, the first Whereas, does the resolution refer to Stage 1 only (820,000 square feet). Director Ericson replied it should reflect the 1.5 million square feet instead of just the first phase and will be amended. He added if there are no changes to the site plan as presented tonight, Medtronic would not need to come back for further approval for phase 2 and phase 3, as the request is for master plan approval of the entire project. Commissioner Stevenson suggested on page 2, item 10, a map should be included to show traffic and timing. He also asked if traffic improvements to County Road J would be completed by September 2007, noting if the state pulls the improvement money, County Road J could not support the additional traffic. Director Ericson replied Staff can address this in the resolution, as a requirement, that transportation requirements have been completed. He suggested it be added to the resolution on page 3, item 4. Commissioner Scotch asked if County Road J coincides with phase 1. Director Ericson replied improvements to County Road J should be completed before phase 1 is done so when Medtronic opens the transportation system will have been completed. Commissioner Miller asked what is the time frame for improvements on County Road J. Director Ericson replied he understands the consultant is on track and improvements should be done by September 2007, providing no unanticipated delays are encountered. Commissioner Hull asked why Medtronic has a PUD instead of just staying with the I-1 designation. Director Ericson replied the primary reason is that it offers flexibility on what can be granted on the site; a PUD district allows for clustering of buildings to preserve green space. Commissioner Scotch asked what is directly across the road from phase 1. Director Ericson replied directly south is open space, on the south side, approximately 400 feet away is housing, then SYSCO to the west and other industrial and office properties to the north. Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated there are no buildings this tall in the City. He noted he could understand if the PUD was 15 years ago, but the City is at the end of its development Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 _____________________________________________________________________________ now. He stated it looks like a gateway into the upper north area. He commended the Commission on their concern and detailed discussion regarding this issue. Commissioner Stevenson replied the PUD allows this type of building structure and the desire is to preserve green space and natural areas. Commissioner Hegland stated during the last meeting there were concerns with the cost of adding utilities under Highway 10 and the issue of bringing on another city well that is currently not in service. He added if the proposed cost estimate to provide utilities to the site is higher, what would be the City’s recourse. Director Ericson replied the utility lines under Highway 10 were proposed in early City plans. He added Council is going to authorize a feasibility report to get a true cost of providing utilities to the site. Engineers estimated the cost at $800,000 which would be shared between Medtronic and the City according to provisions in the development agreement. Commissioner Stevenson stated no matter if the utilities go under Highway 10, or what is found in the feasibility study, this will not make a difference to the resolution this evening. Director Ericson replied that is correct. Commissioner Stevenson asked if the City needs Well #4 to supply adequate water supply to the Medtronic buildings. Greg Lee, Public Works Director, replied no, bringing Well #4 back on line is not contingent upon Medtronic. He referenced a report from 1978 that included a recommendation to bring Well #4 back on line and a 2001 City feasibility report with the same recommendation. Commissioner Scotch asked why it is recommended to bring the well back on line. Mr. Lee replied the well would add more depth and safety to the water system, and provide a “backup” if another well went off line. Commissioner Hegland asked how much excess capacity there is. Mr. Lee replied during peak demands it is barely met; however, they could take a higher capacity well off peak control, use a back up generator, or put Well #4 back on line. He added the Public Works Department will be presenting a proposal regarding this at a later date. Commissioner Miller asked what it would cost to bring Well #4 back on line. Mr. Lee replied approximately $450,000 and a pipe to the treatment line. Commissioner Scotch asked about the condition of the pipes, noting some may be old and in need of replacement in the future. Mr. Lee replied the City is trying to initiate a rehabilitation program and regenerate the systems. Commissioner Hegland asked how much would this project impact the system presently. Mr. Lee replied based on current data from the AUAR, at full build out, about 120,000 gallons a day or 8.6 percent additional water supply. He added the City was always planning to use this land for industrial purposes and from a public works perspective it fits the comp plan well. Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 _____________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn asked if the City is in financial trouble. He also asked if Council was intimately involved in negotiating with Medtronic. Director Ericson replied the City is not in financial trouble and the Council was intimately involved in the process. Commissioner Zwirn stated he is shocked by the poor position Staff and the Council and legal representatives have put the taxpayers. He noted he has the right and responsibility to question all aspects of this project. He stated he has several unresolved questions pertaining to the purchase agreement. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 16, subd. 2, stating phase 1 will be developed with TIF money, and phases 2 and 3 will not be started until there are TIF districts set up and TIF dollars have been allocated. He added on page 8, subd. F, it states using TIF is essential under the agreement, which again states no phase 2 or 3 unless the City and governing authorities provide TIF. Director Ericson replied there is nothing to prevent Medtronic from starting phase 2 or 3 with or without TIF dollars and they have the ability to approach Council with this request. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 17, subd. 3, stating if the developer desires they can make changes in construction plans, submit them for City approval, and they shall be deemed approved unless rejected. He added the onus is on the City to respond within 15 days; otherwise they are construed to be approved. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement stating there are missing definitions in Sections E and H. He added on page 19, first paragraph, reimbursement of funds if the developer fails to meet obligations for phases 2 and 3 are not specifically outlined. He noted on page 20, TIF funds would be used for the acquisition of property in Blaine, and stated he thought this was not supposed to be available. Director Ericson replied according to the agreement, expenses incurred in Mounds View would be reimbursed first, before any reimbursements would be provided for expenses in Blaine. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 21, paragraph F, stating the developer understands they will repay the City for qualified costs and any others should stand alone. He asked about the 25-year TIF plan. Director Ericson replied if the developer requests additional financial services a new development agreement is necessary. He added he cannot address the 25-year TIF plan. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 23, section C, stating the goals for the City are to maintain minimum improvements for at least five years. Director Ericson replied this may be a legal requirement and is not part of the issue the Commission is addressing tonight. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 29, paragraph A, stating prior to the certificate of completion the developer needs to perform obligations to minimum improvements under the agreement. He asked if this says once phases 1, 2, and 3 are completed, if the developer chooses they have the right to sublease the development of property as long as they maintain ownership. Director Ericson replied he is unsure without taking a moment to review the agreement. Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 _____________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Stevenson stated the purchase agreement issues are not relevant to the issue before the Commission tonight. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Hegland. 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 as amended; Planning Cases No. MA2005- 002 and PD2005-002. Commissioner Stevenson asked for a consensus regarding the reading of the resolution. The Commission agreed to have Staff read the resolution. Director Ericson read the resolution, noting the amendments to include, page 1, the first Whereas, 820,000 will be changed to 1,500,000; page 2, item 9 “of” is changed to “or”; page 2, item 10, Exhibit B, transportation improvements, will be added; page 2, item F, will be added to outline that transportation improvements noted in Exhibit B will be completed before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Ayes – 5 Nays – 2 (Zwirn, Scotch) Motion carried. Commissioner Zwirn and Commissioner Scotch indicated their positions are well documented. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: October 19, 2005 at New Brighton City Hall ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:30 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.