Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-2002 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 21, 2002 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., August 21, 2002. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Stevenson, Miller, Johnson, Hegland, Zwirn, and Scotch Members Absent: Song (excused). Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson and Planner Atkinson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case VR02-003 1 Location: 2400 County Highway 10 Applicant: Robert and Anthony Jacob Planning Case ZC02-005, DE02-005 3 Location: 2400 County Highway 10 Applicant: Robert and Anthony Jacob Planning Case VR02-006 5 Location: 5140 Irondale Road Applicant: Jay Oleson Planning Case VR02-007 6 Location: 8436 Spring Lake Road Applicant: Craig Life Planning Case ZC02-004 8 Location: 2901 and 2925 Highway 10 Applicant: John Matthews ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________ 4. Approval of Minutes a. July 17, 2002 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Zwirn. To Approve the Minutes of the July 17, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case VR02-003 Community Development Director Ericson indicated this case is a request for a variance for a reduced front yard setback for a parking lot expansion. He then explained that Jake’s had recently acquired a parcel from the theater PUD and Council had authorized the removal of the parcel from the PUD. He further indicated that there would be a new development agreement to combine the two parcels. Director Ericson indicated there was a revised site plan provided based on discussion at the Planning Commission meeting on August 7, 2002. Director Ericson indicated the request is for a front yard setback of 28 feet with the fence located at 26 feet. He then indicated that Staff had not been able to go out to the site and count the number of trees that would be lost with the four-foot encroachment. Director Ericson indicated that Resolution 700-02 approving the variance request had been provided for Commission action and noted that there is a list of findings establishing the hardship attached to it. Director Ericson reviewed the reasons why Staff feels that the hardship requirement has been met and then listed the stipulations attached to the Resolution of approval. Commissioner Miller asked if the word reconstruct should be used in the Resolution. Director Ericson indicated he felt that reconstruction was appropriate in this instance because the parking lot currently exists and is being reconfigured and reconstructed. Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson asked Staff to clarify why 28 feet is the minimum and why it could not be setback at the 30 feet. Director Ericson explained that the parking lot is setback five feet from the property line to the north and there are one way stalls and the minimum drive aisle width for one way with diagonal parking is 12 feet. He then indicated that they are at the minimum depth for stalls and to allow for the 13 additional spots along H2 the 28-foot setback is the absolute minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship. He further commented that Staff would have preferred to have something along the lines of a 14 foot drive aisle but the Fire Marshall has given approval to the plan and it meets with City Code. Commissioner Miller asked how wide the parking stalls are. Director Ericson indicated the stalls are 9 feet wide and 18 feet deep. Tony Jacob of 188 17th Avenue S.W., New Brighton addressed the Commission and offered to answer any questions. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Hegland. To Approve Resolution 700-02, a Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow a Reduced Front Yard Setback to Expand a Parking Lot for Jake’s Sports Café Located on County Road H2. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case ZC02-005, DE02-005 Community Development Director Ericson indicated this is a request for a development review and rezoning to expand the parking lot onto the adjacent theater office pad. He then indicated that a photometric analysis had been provided showing the light disbursement for the light fixtures proposed. He further indicated that this reconstruction would provide 121 stalls for the site as well as noting that the Jacobs have expressed a willingness to provide whatever landscaping is deemed necessary to fill in any gaps created by the parking lot expansion. Director Ericson indicated that the applicant is proposing to relocate the existing fence to 26 feet from County Road H2 and add a decorative wrought iron fence between the theater lot and the Jake’s lot. Director Ericson indicated there will be only one access from H2 and noted that the site plan would need to be revised to show garbage dumpster detail. Director Ericson indicated there was a Resolution provided for consideration recommending Council approval of the site plan as well as recommending approval of the rezoning request. He Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ then explained that the rezoning request was something that the City wanted to see happen since the property is no longer associated with the theater parcel. Director Ericson indicated that, for the City to approve of a rezoning, two things need to be considered. The first is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the second is that the rezoning would not adversely affect the surrounding properties and neighborhood. He then indicated that the B-3 zoning would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and said that this use should impact the area a little bit less than originally proposed for the office building. Commissioner Johnson asked if the zoning would be consistent with the PUD. Director Ericson explained that the parcel is no longer in the PUD and B-3 would be consistent with the uses. Commissioner Miller asked if the Fire Marshall had reviewed this request. Director Ericson indicated he feels it is tight for drive aisles but it does satisfy City Code and the Fire Marshall has approved the plans as presented. Commissioner Miller asked how the handicapped parking is figured, based on square footage or the number of spaces. Director Ericson indicated it is based on the number of spaces provided and said there is a formula to use of one handicapped space for every 8 stalls which means that Jake’s would need 5 handicapped stalls with one of those being van accessible. Commissioner Zwirn asked how high the wrought iron fencing would be. Director Ericson indicated that no specifications were provided for the wrought iron fencing but said that it was conveyed to be a four-foot tall wrought iron fence. Mr. Jacob indicated that a four-foot fence would be used and noted it is simply to separate their lot from the theater lot. Commissioner Zwirn commented that he felt the fence should be higher than four feet to avoid having people jumping over the fence. Director Ericson explained that the intent of the fence it to delineate Jake’s parking from the theater parking and not to keep people out. He then said that he felt the four-foot fence would be adequate. Chair Stevenson said he thought a six-foot wrought iron fence would detract from the area and he would not want a fence higher than four feet. Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller asked if an access for walking would be available along the fence line. Director Ericson indicated an access is not shown but could be added, if necessary. He then said it may not be necessary because pedestrian traffic between Jake’s and the theater would follow the fence line to the front of the building where they can get around the fence. Chair Stevenson suggested that a gap in the west corner may make sense. He then asked if the fence on the south side would match the current fence. Director Ericson indicated there is no requirement for matching the fencing but said that is the plan. He then indicated a stipulation would be added to indicate that the existing fence is to be reused or a same or similar fencing must be used. Chair Stevenson asked that the wrought iron fence not to exceed four feet be added to the Resolution. MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 707-02, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Development Review for a Parking Lot Expansion and a Rezoning from Planned Unit Development to Highway Business for Jake’s Sports Café Located on County Road H2. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case VR02-006 Planner Atkinson indicated this is a request for a variance for a reduced setback for an accessory structure and the applicant is asking to construct his shed four feet from the rear property line. He then indicated that the criteria must be met to grant the variance and the main one is for a hardship to exist. Planner Atkinson explained that there are three significant trees in the way and that is why the shed needs to be set at four feet. He also noted that locating the shed in another location in the backyard would significantly disrupt the rear yard as there is already existing landscaping. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Miller asked if the existing wood fence is on the property line. Planner Atkinson indicated that it is about 6 inches off the property line. Commissioner Hegland asked how big the shed would be. Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Planner Atkinson indicated that the shed is proposed to be 8x10. Commissioner Zwirn asked how far the shed is from the garage. Planner Atkinson indicated there was 14 feet between the shed and the garage. He also indicated there is a concrete slab located there that the applicant would like to use as the floor of the shed. Chair Stevenson indicated that the City does not like to make too many allowances with the granting of variances but said he feels in this case common sense would dictate that this is an appropriate allowance. Commissioner Miller indicated the fence screens the neighbor from the shed. Commissioner Johnson asked how tall the fence is. Planner Atkinson indicated the fence is six feet tall. He then indicated he had received no responses from neighbors noticed for the public hearing. Commissioner Miller asked that a reference to a one-foot variance be added to the Resolution. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Zwirn. To Approve Resolution 704-02, a Resolution Approving a Variance for a Reduced Setback for an Accessory Structure. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Planning Case VR02-007 Planner Atkinson indicated the applicant had requested a variance for a reduced sideyard setback for a living space addition. He then indicated the garage is in compliance and the living space is proposed to be located behind the garage. He also noted that the criteria must be met to grant the variance. Planner Atkinson indicated the applicant feels the best location for the addition would be behind the garage. He then indicated that another issue to consider is that the proposed addition would be 14 feet across and to comply with the setback would need to be changed to 11 feet in width and the applicant has indicated that would not be enough room to make the addition worthwhile. Planner Atkinson indicated that Staff is looking for direction to draft the appropriate resolution. Commissioner Hegland asked for clarification of how far it is from the house to the garage side wall. Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Craig Life indicated the distance is 14 feet one inch. Chair Stevenson indicated he would like to add something to the Resolution to control the design of the roof line. He then said that there are some additions that look unsightly and awkward because the City did nothing to control and require that the rooflines match. Commissioner Hegland said he would like to see elevations. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Craig Life of 8436 Spring Lake Road indicated he had basic plans drawn and could provide those to the Commission for review. He then said that he would not want to build anything that would look awkward. Chair Stevenson said he would like to see the plans further along in the process. Commissioner Miller asked what the addition would be. Mr. Life indicated it would be a mudroom attaching the house to the garage on the ground level and upstairs it is another room. Commissioner Scotch asked if it is going all the way back to the deck portion. Mr. Life indicated it would be in line with the house coming back. Chair Stevenson asked if the wood fence would be kept between the neighbors and garage. Mr. Life indicated that fence would be removed and replaced with something else. Chair Stevenson indicated that the neighbor’s garage is closer to the property line not the living space. He then asked staff to draft a resolution for approval. Commissioner Miller asked the width of the lot. Planner Atkinson indicated the lot is approximately 75 feet wide. Commissioner Hegland asked what the existing square footage of the house is. Mr. Life indicated that currently there is approximately 1,100 square feet and the addition would be about 700 to 800 square feet. The Commission asked for the specific square footage numbers for the next meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Planning Case ZC02-004 Commissioner Johnson indicated that he would be stepping down from this case because it directly affects him. Planner Atkinson indicated this is a rezoning request from R-1 to R-3 and from B-3 to R-3. Planner Atkinson indicated that there are two considerations to make to approve the rezoning the first is whether the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He then indicated that R-3 is listed as a permitted use under the mixed-use PUD designation. The second consideration is would the rezoning be detrimental to the neighborhood. He then indicated there is a single- family home on one of the lots and the other lot is vacant. He further indicated that the Commission needed to weigh the impact to the neighborhood and said that Staff is looking for input and direction as to how to proceed. Chair Stevenson asked that the Comprehensive Plan map be put on the easel for review. He then said that the reason he asked that the map be displayed is because the three-acre requirement for the PUD involves more than these two properties. Planner Atkinson indicated there is a larger area zoned PUD in addition to these two parcels and the minimum area required is three acres which this request does not have. Director Ericson placed the Comprehensive Plan on the easel. Chair Stevenson asked Staff to point out the properties that would be involved in the PUD area. Planner Atkinson pointed out the mixed use planned unit development and noted that two properties are being requested at this time. Chair Stevenson asked if the PUD goes all the way down to Groveland. Planner Atkinson indicated that it splits Groveland. Chair Stevenson indicated that the PUD designation is on either side of the road at Groveland and then indicated the requested property is right in the middle of the properties designated for a future PUD. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m., requesting that residents keep comments from becoming repetitive. Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Greg Johnson, 2865 Highway 10, indicated the property in question this evening comprises 2.5 acres which is shy of the numbers for the PUD and would make the other properties shy of the three-acre requirement for a PUD. John Matthews, the applicant, indicated he works with Integra Homes and they have the contract on the two properties in question. He then provided a site plan for the proposed parcels. Mr. Matthews indicated he worked with Lampert Design to fit the requirements to do the townhome development and he feels that the picture on front shows that the aesthetics of the property would be improved by approving this rezoning and allowing the townhomes to be constructed. He then offered to answer any questions. Chair Stevenson asked whether the 277 feet plus the right-of-way would cut into another property or if that is the two properties. Mr. Matthews indicated it is just the two properties. Commissioner Miller asked how many units there would be. Mr. Matthews indicated that the proposal shows 16 units, two five unit buildings and one six unit building. He then said the average size is 1,425 square feet up to 1,650 square feet. Commissioner Miller asked for the approximate selling price of the units. Mr. Matthews indicated they would sell in a range from $175,000 to $190,000. Mr. Johnson indicated that by approving this rezoning the possibility of having a PUD on that side of Groveland Road would be ruined. He then said that the reason the applicant does not have the required three acres is that he did not purchase it but he believes he tried but someone was insulted with the price offered. Mr. Johnson indicated that the PUD was to be developed all together which would be the best and highest use for the rest of the 12,500 citizens of this town. He then said he has no problem with the condos going in there as long as it meets all the requirements and it does not. He further commented that he would not care if the whole thing were developed into condominiums if it meets the requirements. Mr. Johnson said the reason why the applicant is not building it all into condos is because he cannot legally steal the rest of the property. He then said he is against it as it sits now because it destroys the PUD. He further commented that he had been told that the house at 8020 Groveland Road had been offered $125,000 and the house values at $185,000. Mr. Johnson indicated the City did a valuation on 7980 Groveland Road, his corner lot, and it was between $180,000 and $190,000 and the offer was insulting. He then said he holds the two Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ key pieces of property. He further commented that he feels this is a case of another bold developer coming into the City and purchasing property for development before looking into what would be allowed on the property and trying to force the City to approve the plans. He also said he had heard a rumor that the applicant has said that he knows he already has three votes in his favor. Mr. Matthews indicated he met with the property owner George Deretich and did a market on the property and the market for townhomes that would fit the price range for the area dictated how much they could offer on the property. He then indicated that Mr. Johnson is asking more than twice what Mr. Deretich accepted, on a per-square foot basis. He further commented that nobody knows anyone on the Council and no one has said that they are sure they have three votes. Mr. Matthews indicated that he had received a call from Mr. Johnson’s agent encouraging them to bring an offer and that is what they did. He then commented that the offer made to Mr. Johnson was $100,000 more than the offer to George but it was thrown in their face. He further commented that they do not want to be forced to purchase property that Mr. Johnson is asking an inflated price for. Duane Waldoch, 2935 Highway 10, indicated he has no problem with what goes into the piece of property next to them as long as screening is provided to protect privacy. He then said that he has a problem with someone buying property in the City for investment purposes and then tries to cram a development down the City’s throat. Mr. Johnson indicated it does not matter whether or not the offer is contingent as the bottom line is that approval of this rezoning breaks up the PUD and the PUD is what the City wants in that location. He then said that there are enough small lots on Highway 10 and this would break up the last big chunk of good tax base along this highway. George Deretich, 2925 Highway 10 and property owner of the lots in question, addressed the Commission and indicated that people in the audience have been having a difficult time hearing the speakers. He then said that Mr. Johnson has a vested interest here and his interest is he wants to make as much money as he can and wants to gouge someone to make that money. He said the City put a lot of money into this and he is trying to convince the Commission not to split up the property because the only viable and best way is to develop it as a whole. He further commented that Mr. Johnson listed his two lots alone because he wanted to split it up. Mr. Johnson said that is not true because he owns the two key pieces and has the one on Groveland Road listed. He then said the question is whether the City wants to break up the PUD. He then said that he has an appraisal from the City and has the right to ask what he wants for the property that he owns. He also commented that he has the right to make money just as anyone else does. Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Johnson indicated the City invested $12,000 into that vacant lot to remove the business located there. He then asked if the citizens get the money back somehow. He further commented that the City paid the $12,000 in an effort to spur development for the whole PUD. Mr. Matthews indicated the purchase agreement is contingent upon City approvals. He then said that he had discussions with Mr. Johnson’s realtor who indicated this was a complete waste of time as it will not get done without Mr. Johnson’s property. He indicated they had talked to Staff and were encouraged to move forward and try to get it done. He further commented that they have put their best foot forward and have nothing to hide and feel like made real good offers to George and Mr. Johnson and were not intending to insult anyone. Mark Schnor, 2949 Highway 10, said he thinks the townhomes are ugly and he would like to keep the corner piece of property being discussed a natural area as it is a good entrance to Mounds View. He then said that developing it may be good for tax revenue but he does not agree with it. Kristen Berline, Mr. Deretich’s daughter, addressed the Commission and indicated the reason her father is selling the property is because she wants him to sell and move out by her in Ham Lake because she feels he is working beyond what is a healthy age to pay for a mortgage. She then said this is not a bold developer that wants to demolish the scenery of Mounds View, it is a developer who wants to help her father out by purchasing his property and allowing him to move to Ham Lake to a home without a mortgage so that he can retire. Ms. Berline further indicated that Mr. Johnson is asking almost double for less property than her dad would get which makes it impossible for a developer to build something there and not lose money and that makes her and any level headed person realize is that Mr. Johnson is making it impossible to build something on his lot and is looking to gouge somebody to do so and only has his own best interest in mind. Jan Merrell, 2892 Sherwood Place, indicated the most important reason she purchased her home is due to the wooded cul-de-sac lots and then indicated her agent told her that the area would probably never be developed. She also expressed concern for lighting from the parking lot and the increased noise due to the loss of the wooded area. She further commented that she would be concerned with drainage from that property onto hers. Lonnie Matthews, the real estate agent involved in this transaction, indicated that Ms. Merrell’s agent never should have told her that property owned by someone else would not be developed. She then commented that townhomes would be a lesser impact than a major corporation coming into the area. Commissioner Hegland asked what the zoning of the lot at 2925 Highway 10 was. Planner Atkinson indicated it is zoned single family residential. Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland asked if that is part of the PUD. Planner Atkinson indicated the future land use map includes it in the PUD. Chair Stevenson asked whether there would be three acres left on either side of the properties in question for a PUD. Planner Atkinson indicated it does not look like there would be three acres on either side. Chair Stevenson indicated that the total area designated as PUD from Groveland Road to Spring Lake Road is approximately seven acres. Planner Atkinson indicated it was between seven and eight acres. Chair Stevenson indicated this would be a substantial PUD and the largest one left in the City and to take the very heart of that PUD out means the City loses the ability to make any of that a PUD. Commissioner Hegland said he has a problem with the fact the proposal cannot be a PUD and, if this is approved, it would not be in accordance with what the future land use plan calls for. Chair Stevenson commented that approval of this would mean that the City is forever left with individual lots on Highway 10. Ernie Zelinka, a n agent with Coldwell Banker who is also involved with this development, addressed the Commission and asked if the City is proposing to take an eight acre parcel split by two roads and turn it into a PUD. Chair Stevenson explained that the entire area on one side from Groveland Road to Spring Lake Road is between seven and eight acres. He then said the City is trying to get away from the individual lots on Highway 10 for future development. Mr. Zelinka said there is no reason why it has to be one eight acre PUD. Commissioner Miller indicated that a PUD needed to be three acres. Mr. Zelinka indicated they are not asking for a PUD. Chair Stevenson explained that by taking the middle out of that section neither side has three acres left for a PUD. He then said that when the City looked into what it wants for the future of Mounds View it was determined that those seven acres of individual properties should be combined and designated as a PUD and by approving the proposal the City loses the ability for a future PUD. Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Zelinka indicated there is still a lot that can be done without it being called a PUD. Chair Stevenson indicated that would be one or two lots at a time and that is not what the City wants. Commissioner Hegland indicated that is not what the Comprehensive Plan calls for. Mr. Zelinka said the City must have had some anticipation of what would happen on the west of Groveland and asked what the City is anticipating on the eight acres. Chair Stevenson said it could be anything and then commented that it is up to a developer to come to the City with a proposal for three to seven acres. Mr. Zelinka indicated they put an effort into getting the other three corner lots but have not worked their way west and are unable to achieve economics with the price being asked as this is not a large name project. Chair Stevenson indicated the City has an appraised value for the property. Mr. Zelinka asked what the value is and then asked if it is in the $5.00 to $10.00 a square foot range. Chair Stevenson indicated he would need to ask Staff for that information. Mr. Zelinka indicated the property will not close without preliminary plat approval from the City. Commissioner Zwirn commented that they made no progress with the properties to the east and then asked if they went to the west. Mr. Zelinka said that had not been done because they were not successful with the other property owners. He then said there is only so much room when going residential. Commissioner Miller indicated that the back halves of 8060 and 8080 Groveland Road would be a large chunk of land. Mr. Zelinka indicated those property owners were approached but said they are happy where they are at and do not intend to sell their property. He then said that it will not be easy for the City to put together a whole eight acre parcel at the same time because the property is owned by individuals and not the City. He further commented that the property has been for sale for more than a year at $9.00 a square foot and has not sold. Mr. Zelinka asked if there were any other opportunities to bring forth another plan. Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 14 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn indicated that coming into the heart of the PUD does not make sense. He then suggested expanding negotiations to the west if the east has not been successful. He also commented that, if 8060 and 8080 Groveland Road have turned them down then maybe the numbers are not there yet. Mr. Zelinka commented that it seems unlikely that anything would happen without a bigger chunk of land. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that to fall into compliance with the definition of the PUD that would be correct. Ms. Berline said she did not think it was fair to put her father in this position because the City wants an eight-acre PUD and his property is located in the middle of it. Duane Waldoch, 2935 Highway 10, indicated that her father could sell the property as a piece of residential property. He then commented that the property was residential when it was purchased and no hardship has been placed on him because the City will not agree to a rezoning to commercial. Ms. Berline asked when the City would have an opportunity when everybody will be willing to sell at the same time. Chair Stevenson indicated the City does have an appraised value for the property. Ms. Berline indicated she would like to see the appraised value of the property. Chair Stevenson indicated that there are developers that will come to the City willing to pay the city appraised value. Ms. Berline indicated that the City appraised value may be much different than what Mr. Johnson is asking. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that Ms. Berline was acting and responding on an emotional basis and he understands that, but what she fails to recognize is that the people her father is attempting to work with have not worked to the west to try to acquire more property to meet City requirements. He then indicated that they attempted to purchase the property to the north but the numbers did not fall into place for those residents. He further commented that they could attempt to alleviate some concerns by trying all avenues and then getting enough information by going to the City offices and finding out what the City appraised values are. Commissioner Zwirn commented that this is purely emotional for them and what the Commission has to do is look at how the proposal works into the City’s future plans and criteria and the three acres comes into play. He then said that her father made an investment and wants Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 15 ________________________________________________________________________ to capitalize on it but there are guidelines that need to be followed which means he cannot exercise the freedom he wishes to. Ms. Berline apologized for her emotional responses but said that is her personality. She then said that in many respects Mr. Johnson’s actions up to this point have shown an unwillingness to negotiate. She further indicated that the property has been for sale for a long time and several people have approached him but the property has not sold which tells her he is asking too much for the property. She also commented that the fact the property has not sold should say something about the fact that he is not willing to accept anything less than what he wants to get for it. Commissioner Zwirn commented that Mr. Johnson could be the greediest S-O-B in the entire City but at this point no one has the facts on the appraised value of the property and the agent has admittedly said these are the monies they have for the project and cannot offer any more for extra property. He further commented that Mr. Johnson has the same right to ask what he wants for the property as her father does. Mr. Zelinka commented that the fact that the City designated an eight-acre PUD does not mean that will happen. He then said that the owners do not have to sell for 100 years and can hand the property down to their children so that means there may only be property available in small acreages. Mr. Zelinka commented that the property as it sits is not generating the tax base that it would if the development is approved. He then said that he hopes the PUD is not an automatic closure to anything less than a whole full blown thing as that would be unfair to the City and those that want to be involved in a beginning project. Mr. Matthews asked if they were able to come up with three acres if that would satisfy the PUD requirements. Chair Stevenson said the Commission would look at it again if the three acres are there. He then said that if they were still looking at breaking up the middle the three acres would meet one of the requirements but maybe not all of them. Chair Stevenson and Commissioner Miller indicated they wished to follow the City’s Comprehensive Plan for future development. Commissioner Hegland said he would like to have information on the City appraised values of the property and the stated value that can be assumed for the PUD development. Mr. Zelinka asked how that information would impact the request. Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 16 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland indicated that the purpose of the PUD, in his opinion, is try to establish an area that can be developed at a higher rate than you would be able to justify somewhere else and that is the reason why the PUD considers a larger area. Mr. Zelinka said he thought the reason for the PUD was to get residential off the highway. Commissioner Hegland commented that the PUD concept was to determine what areas of Mounds View could be developed for a higher tax base and that is based on an assessed value assumption. He then said that the type of development they are discussing putting in there appears to be less than what the City had assumed it would be as well as splitting that PUD in the middle eliminating the possibility of having property that is worth that much per square foot. He further commented that it does not mean that they cannot develop the property but they need to follow City guidelines. Commissioner Miller indicated the City is also trying to eliminate a lot of entrances off of Highway 10. Mr. Zelinka indicated that he works with plans too and sometimes he finds his plans need to be revised and readjusted. He then said he thinks they have come to the City with a nice project that would look nice and give other PUD areas a chance to grow. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:53 p.m. Commissioner Scotch indicated she did not see anything wrong with the townhomes but is torn because of the PUD and future planning for the City. She then said she is listening at this meeting and not prepared to make a decision at this time. Commissioner Zwirn asked Mr. Matthews, based on what was heard this evening, if he was standing his ground or if he was willing to renegotiate or talk to other property owners. Mr. Matthews said he feels the next step would be to work his way to the west to see if they can obtain more property. He then said he would like to help out George and does not want the project to die. He further commented that there is enough land behind Mr. Johnson’s property to have a three-acre PUD. Mr. Matthews said that he would need to sell $230,000 townhomes to make the numbers work and he does not see that working in this location. Commissioner Scotch said she is concerned about the $12,000 that the City paid. Director Ericson indicated the EDA had authorized an expenditure to remove the building but said he is not sure what that amount is. He then said the structure was demolished in an attempt to spur development because raw land is more appealing than a parcel with an old building on it. Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 17 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Matthews thanked the Commission for its time ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Next Planning Commission Meeting: September 4, 2002 ______________________________________________________________________________ 11. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, James Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.