Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 7, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., June 7, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Laube, Miller, and Thomas. Members Absent: Commissioner Stevenson, with prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, and Recorder Trish Pearson. 3. Introduction of New Planning Commissioner Barbara Thomas Planning Associate Ericson introduced the Planning Commission to Barbara Thomas, who was appointed to serve the remainder of the term vacated by Commissioner Ordeen Braathen. Her term expires at the end of 2001. He stated that all were excited to have Commissioner Thomas on board. Commissioner Thomas was sworn into office later that evening. Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. ZC00-002, 2387 Highway 10. Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding a Planned Unit Development for a Walgreens Drugstore and Culver’s Restaurant at the Northeast Corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive. TOLD Development Company, (Represented by Bob Cunningham), Applicant. 2 Discussion Regarding an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Code Pertaining To Sheds and Accessory Buildings. 29 Staff Reports / Items of Information 34 Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 37 4. Citizens’ Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 5. Approval of Minutes A. April 19, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Johnson to approve the April 19, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried. 6. Planning Case No. ZC00-002 Property Involved: 2387 Highway 10 Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding a Planned Unit Development for a Walgreens Drugstore and Culver’s Restaurant at the Northeast Corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive. Applicant: TOLD Development Company (Representative: Bob Cunningham) The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Bob Cunningham, representing TOLD Development Company, is requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development to construct a Walgreens Drugstore and Culver’s Restaurant at the northeast corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive, on the Videen parcel as well as the property commonly referred to as the City’s “remnant parcel.” One of the actions necessary to accomplish this proposal is the subdivision of the City Hall parcel in order for the developer to acquire the remnant parcel that was created during the realignment of Edgewood Drive. The City has constructed a storm water holding pond on the remnant parcel. There has been significant discussion regarding what would be appropriate for this parcel, and significant discussion with the applicant regarding this application. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the Planned Unit Development would involve a rezoning and major subdivision of the property, in order to create the proposed lot. He explained that this process would also combine other lots into two developable parcels. The applicant has proposed to trade 7.7 acres of the Midland Videen site for the City’s one acre remant parcel. He provided the Planning Commission with the site plan, which depicted the area of the Midland Videen site, Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 of which approximately 4 to 4.5 acres is wetland, and the City’s remnant parcel, which is approximately one acre in size. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the remainder of the Midland Videen site which the City would get is upland. It could be utilized for additional storm water holding ponds, or to increase the size of the wetland for mitigation credits. He explained that there is a slight possibility that a portion of this area could be developed in the future, however, it is not planned for development, and the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Open Space. If the City obtains this site, it can ensure the preservation of the wetland and open space, and assist the wetlands to function more efficiently in terms of taking in storm water , recharging the groundwater, and protecting the wildlife and natural habitat in the area. He pointed out that to date, as part of the land trade agreement, City staff has said that the developer would be responsible for creating the walking trails. This has not yet been finally resolved and is subject to further discussion. He advised that the transfer of property between the City and the applicant is necessary in order for this proposal to move forward. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the Planned Unit Development is a three-stage process, which allows for the integrated development of parcels and flexibility in terms of construction on the site. He indicated the Planned Unit Development also provides the City the opportunity to create a more beneficial development by imposing restrictions and requirements beyond those normally present in the District in which it is proposed, and this would allow for greater flexibility in terms of preserving the Open Space, as it exists. He explained that oftentimes, Planned Unit Developments are used to cluster higher density developments in order to create additional Open Space, or to generate credits for density by preserving Open Space, and these are elements of this proposal. He advised that a portion of the Midland Videen site would be transferred to the City, and while it would be part of the proposed Planned Unit Development, it would retain its Comprehensive Plan designated as Open Space. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the three stages of the Planned Unit Development process are Concept, Development Review, and Final Approval. He indicated the first two stages require a public hearing, and staff has notified the residents within 350 feet of the entire project area. He indicated the first and second stages of the process may be combined, and the applicant has opted to proceed directly to the Development Review stage. He indicated there have been informal discussions at various Planning Commission meetings and City Council Work Sessions, and therefore, the applicant is proceeding directly to the development review stage of the process. Planning Associate Ericson advised that during the development review process, the Commission is required to examine the site plan, lighting, signage, elevations, landscaping, zoning and setback requirements, and items of this nature. He explained that as the process moves forward, staff would draft a Planned Unit Development document, which would incorporate all of the details associated with this project. He indicated that if the City approves the Development Review stage of this project, staff would draft the development contract, which would clarify all of the terms of the property transfers. He advised that there are a number of Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 issues that would need to be resolved with the platting of the property, such as vacating the old Edgewood Drive right-of-way, and the platting of the entire City Hall complex, the Community Center, the Midland Videen site, the remnant parcel, and the other parcels located in the subject area. He pointed out that this would allow an opportunity to clean up the City Hall campus site, including the fact that Bronson Drive is not a platted street, but is actually only asphalt laid over the City Hall property. He stated that the platting process would allow both Bronson Drive and the recent realignment of Edgewood Drive to be dedicated as public streets. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the Preliminary Plat was not before the Commission at this time, however, the Commission has been provided with a site plan which accurately represents the proposed configuration of the lots, with the exception of a 66-foot strip of land adjacent to the Community Center which runs up to Bronson Drive. He explained that when the Preliminary Plat comes before the Commission, that strip of land would be attached to the Community Center lot, and the storm water holding pond would be expanded into this area to create additional capacity for storm water , and greater ability to control downstream flooding. Planning Associate Ericson stated that as the Planning Commission reviews this proposal, they might wish to consider and offer their thoughts in terms of a name for the plat. He advised that with this proposal, the City Hall campus on the west side of Edgewood Drive would become a separate block, and the property to the east of Edgewood Drive would become a separate block. He indicated the Walgreens, Culver’s Restaurant and Community Center sites would become three separate parcels, and the area proposed to remain Open Space on the Midland Videen site would be designated as an Outlot. Planning Associate Ericson stated that all of the dimensional requirements for the proposed development are met, or able to be met. He indicated there was an issue with regard to the proposed parking lot setback. He stated that the site plan provided to the Commission does not specify the dimensions, and this information would be before the Commission at their next meeting, however, it was evident that the parking lot extends up to the property line and the right-of-way along Highway 10. He explained that this presents a difficulty in terms of constructing a trailway or path in this area, as discussed, and therefore, the applicant would have to examine this, to determine if there is sufficient space to shift the parking lot back 15 feet to accommodate that pathway. Planning Associate Ericson indicated that the Commission was provided with a preliminary landscape plan, which is not significantly detailed. He stated that the Planning Commission should examine the landscaping issues and provide some feedback in this regard. He advised that, to whatever extent possible, the design of the Walgreens Drugstore is proposed to match the design and color of the Community Center building, and to a lesser extent, City Hall, which is a different color of brick, in an attempt to be consistent with the style that is becoming prevalent in this area. He pointed out that the Theater, which is located across the street from City Hall, has utilized the same type of design style and color of brick as the Community Center, and that this is the design proposed for the Walgreens Drugstore. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Planning Associate Ericson stated that Culver’s Restaurants utilize a corporate design, and they would desire to keep that, although there was potential room for negotiation in this regard. He indicated the Commission was not considering the Culver’s Restaurant at this time, and therefore, this project could be considered a staged development. He advised that at this point, the Commission should proceed with the Development Review for the Walgreens site, and staff would provide all of the information necessary to review this matter, including building elevations and examples of signage. He stated that the developer has indicated that Walgreens would be very open to some type of monument style signage, and given the prominence of the proposed location on Highway 10, it would be important to the City that the signage be less intensive and intrusive, while still meeting the needs of Walgreens. Planning Associate Ericson stated that there were no lighting plans available at this time, and this information would be brought before the Commission at the next meeting. He stated that there was an issue with regard to the wetland buffer. He indicated the wetland has been delineated, and is contained within the Midland Videen site. He explained that the 100-foot buffer would be in very close proximity to the Walgreens building, and would cut through the footprint of the Culver’s Restaurant building, and therefore, a Wetland Buffer Permit would be necessary. He stated that it was possible that this issue could be addressed in the Planned Unit Development document. Planning Associate Ericson stated that access to the site is proposed as a right-in, right-out, off of Highway 10, and a full access driveway off of Edgewood Drive. He indicated that the City has had some discussions with Ramsey County regarding the proposed locations of ingress and egress for the Walgreens, and there might be an issue with regard to conflicts with the right-turn on Highway 10 for Edgewood Drive. He explained that the access to Walgreens might be shifted further south, away from the new Edgewood Drive turning lane, and that this issue would require further examination. He indicated there would be another access from Edgewood Drive, which would serve the joint purpose of access to the Culver’s Restaurant, and an additional access to Walgreens. He advised that a joint access and parking document would be filed by the two properties, to provide that they both have access to the entrance on Edgewood Drive. Planning Associate Ericson stated that one of the conditions the City would place upon this project is that a trailway system be constructed, in the hopes that it would encircle the wetland and tie into the Community Center, the future trailway on Highway 10, and the Walgreens and Culver’s development. He explained that this would offer the visitors to the Community Center an opportunity to walk through the natural area, which is comprised of woods, standing water, and a very nice variety of vegetation. He indicated the City is very determined to preserve this pristine, undisturbed area, which gives further reason for moving forward with the proposed trailways, which would serve to delineate and preserve the wetland area. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the storm water holding pond, which was constructed with the realignment of Edgewood Drive, and is currently located on the City’s remnant parcel, would be relocated to the very southern portion of the Midland Videen site. He explained there are approximately 3 to 4 acres of upland that could be utilized for expanding the wetland or Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 creating additional storm water holding ponds so that it could accommodate some additional storm water that is currently going untreated into the Highway 10 storm sewer system. He added that this would allow for the possibility of reducing, if not eliminating, the potential for downstream flooding. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the storm sewer located under Edgewood Drive and County Road H2 was not sized accordingly for the amount of flow it takes in, and therefore, during heavy rainstorms, there is some backing up of storm water . He stated that it was hoped that all of the storm water coming down Edgewood Drive could be diverted into the new storm water holding pond, which would have an overflow that would allow it to come back out if necessary. He pointed out that the larger, perhaps two-acre, storm water holding pond would be beneficial in terms of the City’s Local Water Management Plan, and the recharge of the system. Planning Associate Ericson stated that there are two sign easements on the proposed site. He indicated that in his understanding, the billboard on one of the sites was by permanent lease arrangement, and would remain on the property unless the lease was purchased from the leaseholder. He stated that Midland Videen representative, Terry Moses, could further address this matter. He explained that the other sign easement is adjacent to the intersection of old Edgewood Drive and Highway 10, and was dedicated to the previous owners of the Community Center, the Bel Rae Ballroom. He stated that the City Attorney was researching this lease document to determine if the City purchased that sign easement in conjunction with the purchase of the Bel Rae Ballroom, in which case, this might involve a simple process of vacating that easement area. He explained that if the sign easement did not transfer with the property during this transaction, the City might have to condemn it. The applicant is requesting that part of this area be utilized for signage for the Culver’s Restaurant, which would not have Highway 10 frontage, and may not have sufficient visibility from the roadway. Planning Associate Ericson stated that further information regarding the ownership of the sign easement would be available at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, at which time, the applicant would bring forward the Preliminary Plat and the final site plan, which would specify all of the dimensions, as well as any other information the Commission feels is necessary. He explained that the site plan would indicate the proposed trailways on the Midland Videen site and along Highway 10, as well as extension of the existing sidewalk along Edgewood Drive to Highway 10. He stated that the photometric analysis would also be presented at the next meeting, and if there were any recommendations pertaining to the landscape plan or other issues, those matters would be brought before the Commission at that time. He indicated this was a public hearing, and that staff sent out literally hundreds of notifications, due to the size of the subject development area. Dave Kepler, 5314 St. Stephen Street inquired why the City needed the proposed development. He stated that there was a Walgreens Drugstore four miles away in Northtown, and another in Lexington. He stated that he did not wish to see this area developed, and he did not see the need to continue developing every piece of undeveloped land. He indicated he has lived in Mounds View for 12 years, and has walked through the proposed site, where there are deer. He pointed Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 out there was plenty of traffic in this area without the proposed trails. He stated that the City should examine this proposal very carefully, adding that if this area is to be developed, he does not believe a Walgreens Drugstore is appropriate for this location. Barry Peterson, 7565 Edgewood Drive stated that the remnant parcel, City Hall and the Community Center create a campus that is very attractive from Highway 10, and he did not believe a Walgreens Drugstore would enhance the area. He indicated that once the parcel is taken away from the City, it would be out of the City’s control for a long period of time, and they would not have an opportunity to change their minds. He stated that two years earlier, this parcel was utilized for a soccer field, and if there had been a proposal to pave over the soccer field and develop the area at that time, there would have been a significant outcry, however, it appeared as if bit-by-bit, things have proceeded in this direction. Mr. Peterson stated that Edgewood Drive is more attractive since the development of the Theater, particularly in terms of the small pond on the corner of the remnant parcel, which creates the appearance of a downtown area, which the City does not otherwise have. He commented that it would be a shame to lose that. He indicated there was a Walgreens drugstore within three miles of the proposed site, in addition to a Synder’s drugstore, a discount pharmacy, and all of the pharmacies that operate within the grocery stores. He explained that there were many drugstores in the area, however, there were very few parcels such as this remaining in Mounds View. He stated that other communities would not consider selling the land adjacent to their City Halls, and this proposal did not appear to be very good long range planning. Mr. Kepler stated that the corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive, with the addition of the Theater, has become very busy, and one tragedy has already occurred. He indicated further congestion on this corner, and a turn lane in and out of the site was simply not necessary. He stated that one of his two boys attends Edgewood Middle School, and they both go to the Theater. He advised that it was already very difficult to cross the highway, and they did not need additional traffic on this corner. Bob Cunningham, representative of TOLD Development Company, stated that he understood and appreciated the neighbors’ concerns. He indicated they were not coming into this project lightly, but rather, have been discussing their proposal with the City for a number of quarters. He stated that they believe this proposal would enhance pedestrian safety by providing pedestrian trails along the north side of Highway 10, connecting the sidewalk from the intersection of Edgewood Drive to the sidewalk terminus adjacent to the Community Center. Mr. Cunningham stated that the Midland Videen parcel, which consists of approximately 3.5 acres of developable land, is privately owned, and is not owned by the City at this point. He advised that the proposed transfer of one acre of the City’s property for 8 acres of the remaining parcel of the Midland Videen site, and having TOLD Development Company pay for the upgrade to the storm water system and the trail system, represents an extremely fair deal to the City of Mounds View. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Mr. Cunningham stated that they were not looking to detract from the campus of the City Hall, Community Center and the Theater. With regard to the comment pertaining to this area being something of downtown Mounds View, this has been discussed at the Planning Commission, and they had agreed, which was one of the reasons they were proposing that the architecture of the Walgreens be consistent with that of the Community Center. He pointed out that they also believe Walgreens, being primarily known as a drugstore, although it is much more, is an important addition to what might be considered a downtown Mounds View. He stated that the Culver’s Restaurant was a mid-priced restaurant that caters to both adults and children, and they feel this would also be a very important and attractive addition to a downtown Mounds View. Mr. Cunningham stated that they are very excited and proud of the plan they have brought forward to the Planning Commission. He indicated they are being sensitive to the wetlands, and sensitive to the neighbors, and are literally hundreds of feet away from the nearest home in this development proposal. He stated that they believe this was an extremely responsible development scheme, which adds value to the City of Mounds View. Chairperson Peterson requested clarification regarding the economic factors, which determine the number of drugstores within a certain area. Mr. Cunningham stated that this was not a speculative venture on the part of TOLD Development Company. He indicated Walgreens has approved the proposed site and are committed to come to the site, provided all the City approvals are obtained. He advised that Walgreens has conducted a market analysis, being aware of their new store at Northtown, and also looking very closely into the competition in the entire area. He explained that their sales forecasts and market demands indicate that there is a current and sustained demand. He indicated that over a year ago, a demographic chart was brought forward which indicated that the population of Mounds View is aging, and therefore, the need for a pharmacy, and the goods sold in a pharmacy would increase over the years. He stated that Walgreens has made a commitment, and they believe Walgreens to be an outstanding corporate citizen, which makes long-term investments in quality buildings and quality operations in quality cities. Terry Moses, representative of Midland Videen, stated that Paul Videen has owned the subject property since 1950, and during that period of ownership, he has given the City of Mounds View everything they have ever requested, such as road easements and storm water pipes, at no charge. He indicated Mr. Videen has permitted festivals to be held on the property, and everyone who has ever requested use of the property has been granted this freely, with no charge. He stated that Mr. Videen allows the Boy Scouts use of the property, and when the Children’s Home Society requested to erect a sign on the property, Mr. Videen not only gave his permission, but also paid to have the permission drafted and charged them nothing. Mr. Moses indicated that over the years, Mr. Videen has had several different development ideas for the property, however, because the City’s plans have changed so many times, the timing was never quite right, and none of these came to fruition. He advised that Mr. Videen is older now, and in poor health, and although he would be happy to hear that the neighbor’s have been Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 enjoying the use of his property, it is private property. He noted that no one from the neighborhood has ever approached Mr. Videen to purchase the property, and he would now like to sell. Mr. Moses stated that after very close examination, they have determined that this is the only site along Highway 10 in Mounds View that could be developed for Commercial use, and is not in some way, adjacent to residential property. He added that they are aware that Mounds View needs and desires more commercial development. Chairperson Peterson stated that Mr. Moses was correct with regard to the number of properties available for commercial development, with the exception of the property at the corner of Long Lake Road and Highway 10, which is a restaurant site that is not immediately adjacent to residential property. Commissioner Kaden asked what would be involved in terms of eliminating the billboard site on the property. Mr. Moses stated that one means to accomplish this would be to purchase the sign easement from the existing owners, and another, as he had suggested in the past, would be a possible swap. He explained that since the City has amended the Code to allow billboards on new Highway 10, it is in the position to grant billboard locations along the new Highway 10. He indicated this area is much more desirable in terms of billboard sites, and he did not believe it would be difficult to negotiate with the owner of the easement to swap the site on the property for the right to install a billboard on the new Highway 10, if the billboards were to be approved by MnDOT. He pointed out that the City might even obtain some compensation in such a transaction. Mr. Moses stated that he was familiar with the previous owner of the Bel Rae Ballroom property, and he did not believe it would be difficult to come to some agreement with him with regard to the second sign easement on this property, however, there was a fairly good chance that this has already been taken care of in the City’s purchase agreement of the Community Center property. He advised that another means to eliminate the signs would be by City condemnation. Mr. Cunningham clarified that Mr. Videen owns the land underneath the billboard, however, the sign company has a perpetual easement, which allows the billboard, and this was not a lease or fee ownership situation, but rather an easement. Commissioner Thomas inquired how long Mr. Videen’s property has been on the market. Mr. Moses stated that he began marketing the property in 1992. Commissioner Thomas inquired if Mr. Videen has received any firm offers on the property. Mr. Moses stated that at one time, there was an offer from a residential developer for single-level senior housing, however, something behind the scenes occurred which scared that buyer off. He indicated that through the years, other proposals have been brought forward, however, they were never in synchronization with what the City desired. He indicated the City has rezoned the Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 property several times and changed its Comprehensive Plan. He explained that at one time, the property was zoned commercial, and other times it was zoned residential, and the timing has never been quite right for Mr. Videen. Commissioner Thomas inquired regarding the current zoning of the property. Mr. Moses stated that it was zoned B-3, Commercial. Commissioner Thomas inquired how far the large trees on Highway 10 were from the property line, and if they could be saved rather than removed. Mr. Cunningham indicated that the trees generally begin in the area that has been delineated as wetland, to the east of the proposed development. He stated that they have obtained delineations of both the wetland and tree line, and could provide this information to staff and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Thomas inquired regarding 3 or 4 large trees located between the new and old Edgewood Drive. She stated that according to the plans that were provided, it appears that these would be eliminated with the construction of the proposed parking lot. Mr. Cunningham stated that those trees would be included in the development scheme. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the developer could indicate the location of those trees on the site plan, in relationship to the proposed lots, buildings, and parking lot, and bring that forward at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kaden stated that if this item were to move forward, the wetland area would be zoned Planned Unit Development. He inquired if this could be zoned Open Space later in the process, or possibly made into a park, so that the residents could be certain that the upland behind their homes would not be developed. Planning Associate Ericson stated that staff would request the City Attorney’s opinion in this regard. Chairperson Peterson stated that the Conservancy, Recreation and Preservation designation might be an appropriate zoning for this property. Community Development Director Jopke stated that the Outlot site is designated as a natural Open Space in the Comprehensive Plan, and this would provide some protection against future development. He added that through the Planned Unit Development process, the only thing allowed to occur on that property would be exactly what is approved on the plan, and the property would be specified as Open Space on the plan, which would provide protection from that standpoint. He advised that if the proposed land swap occurs, the City would own the property, and therefore, a number of protections would be in place to maintain the property as it exists. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Commissioner Laube pointed out that a Planned Unit Development could be amended. He inquired if it would be more appropriate to address this issue through the zoning designation, rather than within the Planned Unit Development document. Community Development Director Jopke advised that the property owner could propose to change the designation at any given point, however, if the land swap takes place, the City would be the property owner, and therefore, would have complete control over the property. Mr. Cunningham offered that if it was the desire of the City to maintain that property as perpetual Open Space, the City could attach a protective covenant to the deed to prohibit any form of development, regardless of the zoning. Chairperson Peterson stated that in all of the proposals that have come forward for this property, he was not aware of any proposed use for anything other than the developable area of this property, with the remainder of the property simply serving a natural preservation role. Mr. Cunningham stated that they had brought forward the possibility of developing a park on the upland, however, there appeared to be no interest in this, but rather, more interest in leaving the area as it exists, with the exception of a pedestrian trail. Commissioner Hegland stated that 112 parking spaces were required for the proposed development. He inquired if this number was based upon the Code requirement for this business. Planning Associate Ericson stated that this requirement was set forth in Chapter 1121 of the City Code. Commission Hegland stated that it did not appear that the applicant could meet this requirement, however, this appears to be a large number of parking spaces for such a use. He inquired regarding the number of spaces the applicant would generally desire for a project of this nature. Mr. Cunningham stated that if these were stand-alone parcels, Walgreens would generally look for 70 to 75 parking stalls, and a 4,500 square-foot Culver’s Restaurant would generally look for 45 to 55 parking stalls, which is not inconsistent with the Code requirement, however, there was a certain synergy in having the parking of these two businesses in close proximity to each other. He indicated the parking was more than adequate for the two proposed uses. Commissioner Hegland stated that the proposed parking appeared to be somewhat excessive. Mr. Cunningham pointed out that it was somewhat less than that required by the City Code, and this was reflected in the synergy factor. Chairperson Peterson stated that there have been some ideas in the past regarding the drainage plan, and this was one of the reasons that at the Council level, it was decided that the pond should be moved to the other side of Edgewood Drive, so that it could potentially be relocated elsewhere. He inquired regarding the current plans for the pond. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 Planning Associate Ericson stated that staff has seen a draft drainage plan, which encompasses the entire site, and this has been forwarded to the City Engineer for further review to determine what the specifications and requirements would be for an expanded storm water pond, which would be located at the southern end of the Midland Videen property. He explained that the storm sewer , which is currently located under Edgewood Drive, would be re-routed to the north or south of the buildings, and would cross the wetland area. He stated that the storm sewer would drain into the proposed storm water pond, which would take in all of the runoff from the Walgreens, Culver’s, and City Hall, as well as all of the runoff that comes down Edgewood Drive. Planning Associate Ericson stated that all of the runoff from Edgewood Drive currently drains directly underneath Highway 10, and there is no treatment for this water. He indicated it is proposed that all of that storm water would be routed to the storm water holding pond, where the sediments would have the opportunity to fall out, and the water would purify. He stated that there would be an outlet, which would feed back into a storm sewer that runs parallel to the Highway 10 right-of-way, and this would connect to the storm sewer runs underneath Highway 10. Planning Associate Ericson stated that they were uncertain regarding the size of the storm water pond, however, it would create an opportunity for all of the runoff to be treated, and it would also be beneficial in terms of reducing the potential for downstream flooding, as the size of the storm water sewer in County Road H2 is not adequate to handle all of the volume which runs down Edgewood Drive. He advised that this would provide a place for the storm water to cleanse itself and feed into the wetland area in a much cleaner state, and it would provide an overall regional surface water management benefit as well. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the City Engineer is currently considering an appropriate size for the pond in order to accommodate the volume of flow, and the best location for the storm sewer to cross into the pond. He stated that the elevations appear to be acceptable, in that the flow could reach the new pond, exit the pond, and be diverted back underneath Highway 10. He advised that all of the elevations of contour appear to support this, and this is simply a matter of determining the most appropriate location of the storm sewers. Community Development Director Jopke stated that staff has requested the City Engineer examine this issue and come forward with the best scheme to address the regional watershed drainage that is called for in the Local Water Management Plan. He indicated this concept was presented to the developer, and is in the process of being fine-tuned at this point. He explained that City staff has been involved in this process, and the City Engineer has also had conversations with the Rice Creek Watershed District in this regard. Commissioner Thomas inquired if altering the flow of runoff through the area would affect the residential properties. Community Development Director Jopke stated that the intent was that there be a positive affect on overall drainage, as the runoff in this area and downstream would be Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 better treated and accommodated. Commissioner Johnson added that this would also provide an opportunity for potential wetland credits. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the proposed pond would be designed with shallow banks, and similar in style to the pond at the Theater project, rather than the drainage trenches utilized at Mounds View Square. Community Development Director Jopke stated that this was correct. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the pond would be attractive, as opposed to the utilitarian style ponds that require fences. Mr. Cunningham stated that the pond would be visually attractive and safe. He noted litter traps would be installed. Chairperson Peterson inquired if there was significant fluctuation in the water levels of the wetlands during different periods of the year. Mr. Peterson stated that at certain times in the year, there was a foot or two of water in the area. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the proposed drainage plans would stabilize the water levels and provide additional capacity to handle a large flooding situation. Planning Associate Ericson stated that there would be more control over fluctuation in the water levels, in that more of the storm water would be diverted into the pond, and there would be less runoff draining directly into the wetland. Chairperson Peterson inquired if there could be any additional flooding as a result of this proposal. Planning Associate Ericson stated no. He indicated the storm water ponds would be sized according to the 100-year rainfall events, and there would be an overflow storm sewer, which would automatically divert any excess volume underneath Highway 10, and into the Highway 10 storm sewer system, and the pond could not reach a point where it would overflow its banks. He advised that a graded above-ground outlet would be installed, which would feed into the Highway 10 drainage ditch in the case of a 100-year rain event, and in addition, an overflow storm sewer would be built into the drainage system. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the storm sewer pipe that was proposed to run through the wetlands would be located underground. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the storm sewer would be required to skirt or run underneath the wetlands. He stated that oftentimes, there is some standing water in the area of the signs, and the storm sewer would either run through this area, or at the boundary of the wetland approximately 150 to 200 feet from Highway 10, which would be a shorter distance, and would disturb less of the wetland. He stated that preliminary discussions with Rice Creek Watershed District indicate that this would not be a problem, and would be preferable in terms of the wetland. He advised that the pipe would be located below ground, and there would be minimal disruption at the time it is installed. Commissioner Miller inquired how soon the applicant expected to hear from Ramsey County regarding the access off of Highway 10. Planning Associate Ericson stated that there was some Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 consideration as to whether the applicant should meet with MnDOT or Ramsey County, in light of the pending transfer of the roadway to Ramsey County. He explained that Ramsey County would be the caretaker of the roadway in the future, and there have only been preliminary discussions at this point. The applicant desires to proceed with this matter within the next week. Commissioner Miller inquired if there were any traffic studies available for review. Planning Associate Ericson stated that traffic counts for Edgewood Drive were available. He added that with a previous proposal, TOLD Development Company conducted a traffic study to determine the anticipated volume of traffic that use would generate, and it would be fairly simple to extrapolate this information to fit the current situation. Mr. Cunningham stated that they could prepare this information for consideration at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Laube inquired if the entire proposal was hinging upon the right-in, right-out access from Highway 10, or if the applicant would be open to a right-in only, in the event that Ramsey County denies further access. Mr. Cunningham stated that there were many variables that would have to be addressed. He indicated Walgreens approval was based upon a right-in, right-out access from Highway 10, and that was the basis upon which he would approach Ramsey County, adding that they would attempt to show Ramsey County that they could do this in a safe and efficient manner. Chairperson Peterson stated that the City of Mounds View is currently examining the safety issues of Highway 10, in conjunction with issues of aesthetics and visual appeal, and attempting to make Highway 10 a more pedestrian friendly stretch of roadway. He stated that the Highway 10 Steering Committee had met the previous evening, and all of the members felt very strongly that the speed limit on Highway 10 is excessive. He explained that the roadway was designed for 70 miles per hour, and is posted at 50 miles per hour, however, vehicles travel much faster than this which results in the necessity for the long acceleration and deceleration lanes. He stated that there was a very strong consensus to reduce the speed limit to 45, or possibly 40 miles per hour, which, in conjunction with various landscaping and other measures, should make the corner of Edgewood Drive and Highway 10 safer. He pointed out that this may have some bearing in the context of the access off of Highway 10, in that a representative of Ramsey County was present at the meeting, and did not indicate that it would be a problem to slightly reduce the speed limit which would not only benefit this specific corner, but also, the entire City. Commissioner Johnson stated that another issue discussed by the Steering Committee was that all future developments be mandated to install all of the bikeways and pathways, and any safety measures necessary along the highway. He indicated funds were available from Ramsey County for painted or brick crossings on the road to slow traffic, as well as curbing of the medians, trees, and items of this nature. He explained that this would tend to have a calming affect on the speed of traffic, as opposed to a wide-open stretch of roadway. Commissioner Johnson indicated the Steering Committee had compared Highway 10 to the wider roads in the City, and determined that the wider roads are generally traveled at higher rates of speeds, however, the narrower roads, with overhanging trees and visual interruptions Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 automatically result in slower speeds. He advised that this was no longer in discussion, but is in the process of taking place, and the residents should attend these Highway 10 development meetings, as this is where they would have the most significant impact regarding what occurs in the area, in terms of pathways, bikeways, crossings, and light timing. He stated that this would take place as soon as the roadway is turned back to Ramsey County, and it would be approached in steps of 2, 5, 10 and 15 years, however, one of the immediate results would be that any new developments along the Highway would be required to install sidewalks, bike paths, and walkways next to the highway, as well as landscaping and other necessary items. Commissioner Johnson advised that when the road was owned by the Department of Transportation, there was very little the City could do. He explained that they had discussed the construction of bike paths along the highway two years earlier, and MnDOT’s response was that this not be done in the very wide easement on Highway 10, and they would not allow any bike paths to be constructed on the property side of the ditch, however, it appears that Ramsey County has no problem with this. He stated that the City’s hands were tied with MnDOT, however, now that Ramsey County has control of the road, the City is able to proceed with these measures. Commissioner Hegland stated that the addition of entrances and exits along the highway would conflict with the addition of safe bikeways and pathways, in that the increased traffic crossing the roadway would result in reduced safety. He stated that he was not certain how these would fit together. Commissioner Johnson indicated there has already been some reduction in the number of access points of the commercial properties along Highway 10 regardless of whether or not the applicant obtains a right-in right-out access at this time. He stated that there would be 8 acres of frontage along the highway that would not be touched once the City gains control of it, and at present, there are 3.5 acres of developable land on Highway 10, which is quite valuable. He indicated that there could actually be two accesses on the 8 acres of frontage, however, the applicant was currently only requesting one access. Commissioner Thomas requested clarification regarding the physical features of the Culver’s Restaurant. Planning Associate Ericson requested that the applicant bring promotional information regarding the Culver’s Restaurants for the Planning Commission to review at the next meeting. Chairperson Peterson requested an overview of the Culver’s menu. Mr. Cunningham provided the Commission with a copy of the menu, and explained that it consisted primarily of grill items, in addition to soups, salads, and chili. He indicated Culver’s does good business in frozen custard, serving a different flavor daily, as well as frozen shakes and malts. He explained that there is a children’s menu and a kids’ club, and this was a very family oriented restaurant. He stated that there is a Culver’s Restaurant in close proximity to his home, and many senior citizens patronize this restaurant. He indicated Culver’s is known for their extremely clean facilities. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 Chairperson Peterson inquired if Culver’s was a regional chain. Mr. Cunningham stated that Culver’s is based out of Sauk City, Wisconsin, with restaurants located in virtually every small town in Wisconsin, and they are doing a natural progression into the metropolitan areas. He indicated each of the restaurants is independently owned, and they would be dealing with a local franchisee at the proposed site. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the exterior design of the building was a corporate standard. Mr. Cunningham stated that he believed there was some latitude in terms of the design. Runs Mae, 5398 St. Stephen Street stated that one of her concerns was the potential for noise from the vehicles that utilize the drive-through at the Culver’s Restaurant. She indicated the residents in this area have experienced significant noise problems associated with the Bel Rae Ballroom in the past, and sound carries in this area. Commissioner Laube stated that in past discussions, the Planning Commission had requested some type of evergreens be planted in this area to serve as a sound barrier, however, they did not appear on the site plan. He indicated the sound barrier should consist of a natural type of screening such as plantings, rather than a fence, and this was to screen the vehicle noise particularly during the winter months. Mr. Cunningham stated that the landscaping plan is very preliminary. He indicated they would include plantings to provide screening. He pointed out that to his knowledge, Culver’s Restaurants do not operate on a 24-hour basis, and they all appear to close at approximately 10:00 p.m. He advised that the hours of operation could be discussed with the franchisee, to ensure they are not open late in the evening. He indicated that the drive-through order window would be a substantial distance from the nearest residential property, and the issue of vehicle noise could be addressed as the project proceeds. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the drive-through window at the Culver’s Restaurant was approximately 550 to 650 feet from the back property line of the homes along St. Stephen Street. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the size of the proposed Walgreens in comparison to the stores on Lake Drive and at Northtown. Mr. Cunningham stated that as a retailer Walgreens is continually attempting to modify their plan. He explained that the latest incarnation of the Walgreens plan, as depicted on the site plan, was 14,490 square feet. He advised that the most recently constructed store was approximately 500 square feet larger than this, and the facility at Northtown, was 15,120 square feet in size. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the size of the Walgreens located in the city of Fridley. Mr. Cunningham indicated this store was 13,390 square feet in size, and all of the building sizes were within 10 percent of each other, however, they were all subject to some design modifications. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 Chairperson Peterson stated that the two proposed buildings appeared to be more than 500 feet from the nearest residential property. Commissioner Kaden stated that he was aware that sound carries farther over open land, and if the applicant could provide additional trees and plantings, this would assist in blocking some of the noise. Mr. Cunningham stated that this would be incorporated into the landscape plan. Chairperson Peterson inquired if there was further information regarding the lighting plan. Planning Associate Ericson stated not at this time, however, there was a possibility that some type of decorative lighting might be incorporated into the plan. He explained that the Director of Public Works had discussed decorative lighting along Edgewood Drive with the owners of the Theater, and if this was to occur, it might be possible to incorporate a similar design style into this proposed development. Chairperson Peterson stated that in addition to the need for sidewalks and paths along Highway 10, one of the items brought forward by the Steering Committee pertained to the fact that this area is very dark. He pointed out that it might be beneficial to incorporate the trailway in the lighting plans for the parking lot. Commissioner Hegland inquired how the applicant proposes to address the issue of the pathway along Highway 10. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the applicant would have to examine the site plan and determine if the building could be reoriented or the parking lot resized in order to accommodate the pathway. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the applicant has been provided sufficient information regarding the City’s expectations for this pathway. Planning Associate Ericson stated yes, adding that this was simply a matter of putting this in writing and bringing the matter back before the Commission. Chairperson Peterson stated that the right-of-way along Highway 10 was currently very wide, and MnDOT does not allow any paths or things of this nature in their right-of-way, however, as part of the redevelopment of the Highway 10 corridor, it is possible that the width of the right-of- way could be decreased, leaving additional green space that could be used for the City’s benefit, but not actually as part of the Ramsey County Highway right-of-way. There was a question regarding whether or not a trail could fit in this area and be resolved in that time frame, or if the applicant would be required to work with the current road standard. Planning Associate Ericson stated that Ramsey County appears to be willing to work with the City in terms of a pedestrian way, the decorative lighting, and some type of plantings in the right-of-way, therefore, that option is a possibility, however it has not been discussed at this point. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 Commissioner Johnson stated that until the road is turned back to Ramsey County, this is still up for discussion, and if the applicant is requesting a right-in, right-out access, the possibility of additional room along the highway could be discussed in conjunction with this. Commissioner Thomas stated that there was considerable residential property in this location, and significant lighting has been built up in this area. She indicated that with two more evening and late night businesses at this corner, she would be interested in incorporating shielded lights in the plan, and determining what could be done to prevent light from escaping the site. Mr. Cunningham stated that they will provide a photometric analysis, which specifies the light candle throughout the entire site plan that would be generated by the proposed uses. He stated that the photometric analysis indicates there would be no light spillage beyond the outside boundaries of the property. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the photometric analysis took directional lighting into consideration as well. Mr. Cunningham stated that this was correct. He explained that it was specific to the lighting fixtures that would be incorporated into the project. Planning Associate Ericson added that the City Code requires that the proposed lighting be hooded to prevent direct visibility of the bulb, and that the light be directed downward. He advised that there is also a Code requirement that stipulates that the light shall not escape the property, and that this is an issue of significant concern to the City. He stated that in light of the residential nature of this corner, and even in consideration of the City Hall campus area and the homes located across the wetland, there is a concern to maintain a residential feel to this development, and any proposed lighting would have to be consistent and in keeping with that. Chairperson Peterson stated that lower light standards were utilized at the Theater to prevent atmospheric light from escaping the property. He explained that although the Code does not allow any direct light to spill onto other properties, in certain conditions, the lighting generates a glow, which is reduced through the lowering of the light standards. He suggested this might be incorporated into this lighting plan as well. Commissioner Thomas stated that the trees separate the theater and the residential properties in the area, however, a tree break is not present. Commissioner Johnson stated that regardless of this, the Code requires that no light leave the property. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that if there is some lighting closer to the street on Edgewood Drive it might be beneficial from a safety standpoint, as opposed to the opposite end of the site where it would be preferable to avoid any light spillage. Commissioner Kaden stated that with regard to the comment pertaining to why a Walgreens Drugstore was necessary when it is in such close proximity to other drugstores, he understood this concern, and had wondered for many years why the City would allow a new gas station to be constructed when this would drive another one out of business. He indicated he attended a Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 19 Planning and Land Use seminar, where he discovered that according to the Supreme Court, if a property is zoned for a specific use, and the developer meets all of the requirements, the City may not disallow the use on the basis that there are too many other similar uses in the area. He advised that this would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Commercial Code, therefore, if a proposal meets all of the specifications, and the zoning is in place, they must be allowed to proceed. Barry Peterson, Edgewood Drive stated that he understood this as it applies to private property, however, the subject property is public land. Commissioner Johnson advised that at this time, the land is privately owned. Mr. Peterson stated that the Midland Videen land is privately owned, however, the small pond was City owned, and this parcel was necessary in order for this proposal to proceed. He inquired if the development could occur without the City’s parcel of land. Commissioner Johnson stated that it could, however, it would be in closer proximity to some of the residents, and they would loose access to all of the woods. Mr. Peterson stated that he was not opposed to this proposal, however, had some questions and concerns. He requested clarification regarding the impact to the traffic in the area. He stated that the proposed location of the loading docks, as represented on the site plan, did not appear to be appropriate or particularly attractive. Mr. Cunningham stated that no loading docks were proposed. He explained that the site plan depicted an enclosed trash compactor and an overhead door facing northeast, which would be most visible from the Culver’s Restaurant. Mr. Peterson inquired if the entrance for both buildings would be taken off of Edgewood Drive. Mr. Cunningham indicated there would be a shared entrance for both the Culver’s Restaurant and Walgreens. Mr. Peterson stated that this would significantly affect the levels of traffic in the area. He stated that the Theater Project Planned Unit Development had undergone many changes, and it was difficult to recollect all of the things that occurred, however, the residents were ultimately informed that this was just a “bitter pill” that they would have to swallow. He stated that he did not desire to come to a point in this process where it is just another “bitter pill” that they must swallow because the project was so far along, and he would like to know these things in advance. Commissioner Johnson stated that the “bitter pill” in this situation would be the Midland Videen lot, which is currently zoned B-3, and as Commissioner Kaden had stated, if someone came in with a proposal to develop the 3.5 acres of developable land and could meet all of the requirements, the City could not stop them. He added that with this proposal, the City would maintain control over the development process. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 20 Mr. Peterson inquired regarding the value of the Midland Videen property. Commissioner Johnson advised that developable property fronting Highway 10 was worth between $8 and $10 per square-foot. Mr. Peterson inquired what this particular property was worth with only 3.5 acres of developable land, and how this compared to the value of the City property. Commissioner Johnson advised that there was a storm water pond located in the middle of the City-owned parcel. Mr. Peterson stated that the pond would be removed. Chairperson Peterson explained that with the pond in the middle of the parcel, it was not worth anything as commercial property, because the pond must be relocated if the land is to be used, and there was no place to relocate the pond unless the Midland Videen property was involved. Commissioner Johnson commented that this was probably the best proposal the City would see on this site, in terms of preserving the green space and other factors. Mr. Peterson stated that this development would break up the continuity of the area. He explained that this commercial development was proposed to be located in the middle of the City Hall/ Community Center campus area. Commissioner Johnson stated that this was correct, however, this developer was willing to work with the City in terms of a design, which is consistent with the surrounding features. Mr. Peterson stated that the previous year, a questionnaire was sent out to the residents to determine what should be done with the City parcel, and in his understanding, there was a very minimal response, however, the majority of those who responded indicated they felt this land should be held in reserve. Community Development Director Jopke stated that staff has met with an appraiser to obtain an appraisal of both the City parcel and the Outlot, and they anticipate that by the end of the month, further information should be available in this regard. Chairperson Peterson inquired where in relationship to the wetland boundary the Midland Videen property development could occur, if it were to be developed independently of the City remnant parcel. Commissioner Kaden indicated it would abut the residential property. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the Midland Videen parcel is 9.4 acres in total, of which approximately 5 acres is upland. He advised that there were ways to reconfigure the wetland, and if the wetland was all shifted to one side, with the consent of the Rice Creek Watershed District, additional areas to the rear could be mitigated or combined with the uplands to create a more feasible development scenario. He commented that this was a possibility, although it was not anything that the City would like to see. Planning Associate Ericson stated that site could be developed, and as all were aware, such acreage on Highway 10 in such close proximity to the Twin Cities simply does not exist, and they are presently seeing development on what was previously considered to be undevelopable land. He pointed out that properties that were marginal, at best, were now being developed. He stated that a couple of houses were currently being constructed in the City on properties that no Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 21 one would have thought to build upon in the recent past, therefore, the possibility exists that with some mitigation there could be significant area for development on this property. Chairperson Peterson stated that he would prefer to see development closer to the Highway 10 access on Edgewood Drive, and farther from the residential area, rather than to attempt to create access further down the highway. He added that given the fact that the property owner desires to sell and do something with the land, something would occur on the property, regardless. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the next Planning Commission meeting would be held on June 21st, and the residents in attendance were welcome to attend that meeting as well. He explained that the residents who signed in would be provided with information regarding what was happening in the future with this project. He stated that typically, there would not have been a public hearing this early in the discussion, as this was a preliminary concept, and all of the plans were not available for Planning Commission review, however, staff believed that the nature of this project, and the fact that it involves public land, warranted including the residents in the discussion as early as possible, to obtain feedback that could be utilized for making this decision. Planning Associate Ericson stated that at the next meeting, the applicant would be able to provide the Preliminary Plat, as well as a site plan, which addresses all of the issues that were discussed in addition to the dimensions and items of this nature. He indicated the photometric analysis and some lighting examples would be before the Commission, as well as the landscape plan. He stated that it was hoped that the drainage plan would be completed at that point, and any other items that the Commission requests for their review at that time. Commissioner Miller stated that at the time the Theater project was proposed, there was some discussion pertaining to this property, in terms of including some of the land for office buildings. She inquired if that would have represented further development along Highway 10. Community Development Director Jopke advised that there were a number of discussions going back to the University of Minnesota study of the City about what would happen to this entire area. He stated that concepts that were brought forward pertaining to many different opportunities for additional development including the relocation of City Hall to a different building to allow for additional office development along Highway 10 in this particular area. He explained that there were some ideas, however, none of these have come to fruition. Gary Akerman, 2564 Greenfield Avenue stated that there is significant traffic at the intersection on Edgewood Drive, particularly in the morning and evening hours. He indicated the intersection appears to be narrow, particularly in the center area, which makes turning from any direction very difficult. He suggested that when the traffic patterns are determined and the concept comes forward, the applicant discuss this with Ramsey County, and inquire regarding the possibility of widening the intersection for safety purposes, and extending the light timing so that people are able to cross completely, rather than just halfway across the highway. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 22 Chairperson Peterson requested clarification. Mr. Akerman stated that the intersection on Highway 10 appears to be 12 to 15 feet narrower in the center than it is on the outside on either side of the highway. He explained that vehicles traveling north or south on Highway 10 have to make a tight turn to go through the intersection, and then must adjust their vehicles to enter the proper lane. Chairperson Peterson stated that it appeared from the site plan that Edgewood Drive accesses Highway 10 at a slight angle. He suggested this portion of the Highway 10 redevelopment might involve moving those medians back. Mr. Akerman stated that a left hand turn lane should be added because there is currently a right hand turn lane or a lane that goes through and turns to the left on Edgewood Drive, and if there is traffic coming in the opposite direction, this creates somewhat of a traffic jam for vehicles attempting to go in both directions. He stated that he particularly noticed this in the mornings and evenings, when there is increased traffic in the area. He added that the road adjacent to the Theater has become somewhat of a shortcut for vehicles that drive through the neighborhoods rather that taking County Road H-2 to Highway 10. Commissioner Johnson advised that this issue could be addressed now that there is more control over the light timing. He indicated there would be a longer light timing, because one of the points that was made was that there was no way to cross the highway on one light, and representatives of the Department of Transportation literally had to run to make it halfway across the highway. He stated that he was not certain if the intersection could be widened, as this was one of the new LED lights, however, many things would now be possible. Mr. Ackerman stated that there would be more potential for an accident with this development, particularly in terms of traffic coming off of Highway 10 or from the ball field, and perhaps the developer could arrange for a turn lane with this project, to safeguard against problems in the future. Mr. Moses stated that with regard to crossing the highway, this was comparable to a problem the railroads were experiencing in that trains are deceiving and appear to be slow moving because of their large size. He explained that highways and freeways are similar in that they do not appear to be a great distance to cross until you are actually in the process, and he believed an educational process was necessary with regard to perception, such as that utilized by the railroads. James Faracy, 5298 St. Stephen Street stated that it would make more sense for the City to purchase the entire parcel because it is a piece of property that does not exist anywhere else, and he believed the City should have taken action to obtain that property. He inquired what assurances the residents on St. Stephens Street have that the developable 3.5 acres would not be developed in the future. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 23 Commissioner Johnson stated that at this time there were none, short of purchasing the property themselves, however, the land swap would take care of this. Mr. Faracy inquired what assurances the residents would have that the City would not sell the property for development after the land swap. Commissioner Johnson explained that this property has been discussed as Open Space. Chairperson Peterson stated that one of the main factors is that this property is presently wetland, and there are many City, State, and Federal statutes, as well as the Rice Creek Watershed District, which prohibit the filling of wetland. He pointed out that it was not in anyone’s best interest to disturb the drainage pattern, therefore, he could envision no situation wherein the City would have any interest in developing the site beyond the current proposal. He noted the suggestion that a covenant might be written into the deed to provide that this property remains a natural space. Commissioner Kaden stated that he would be in favor of this. He advised that the City may not desire further development of this property at this time, however, in the future, a different City Council or City Planner might decide that such a venture would be easy money. Commissioner Laube added that in the future, State laws might be different as well. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that the drainage issues would still be present. Mr. Cunningham stated that the utility planned for the 3.5 acres of upland adjacent to the residences is as future storm water detention. Mr. Faracy inquired if a portion of the property along Highway 10 was undevelopable. Mr. Cunningham stated that this was correct, however, it was conceivable that the wetland on that site could be mitigated in such a manner as to create a developable strip along the highway. Planning Associate Ericson referred to the site plan and pointed out the areas of wetland and developable land. He indicated there are wetland regulations, which would prohibit any development in the wetland area, however, there are provisions within these regulations that would allow some filling of the wetland if those areas were mitigated at a 2 to 1 ratio. He advised that the proposed area could be developed in its existing state, as it is zoned Commercial and has Highway 10 access, which he believed was one of the City’s reasons for considering this proposal, is to take the property off of the market commercially. He stated that the City has always had the opportunity to purchase this property. Mr. Moses indicated the suggestion to place restrictive covenants in the deed pertaining to the use of this property was an excellent idea, however, the City has condemnation rights over almost anything that is done, and this could be changed. He advised that one answer would be to place a conservation easement over this land, and give it over to the State or some higher entity than the City, which would take away the City’s ability to do this. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 24 Mr. Cunningham pointed out however, that if the City were to do this at this time, it would eliminate the City’s future opportunity to utilize this land for wetland mitigation, and therefore, the City might desire the property remain as it is until it is turned over. Mr. Moses explained that the City should attempt to obtain all that they desire from the property, after which, to prevent any commercial development, this might be the answer. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that having the property in the City’s control would probably be the best assurance that it would not be developed. He explained that although there was a possibility that the property could be developed in the future by the City, it would be under City control, and there would have to be many citizens in favor of such development in order for it to occur. He stated that this has been done in the past, however, taking the property out of the City’s control would provide no greater assurance that it would not occur. Mr. Faracy stated that the City was currently proposing to trade City land for private land. He stated that the City has the one-acre parcel, and they are discussing converting that one-acre parcel to develop the land, therefore, it is not clear that the City’s ownership of the property is any protection against development. Mr. Faracy stated that he was a businessman, and understood the nature of business, however, he had concerns regarding the best means to ensure the maximum protection for the residents in the area. He stated that he lived on the opposite side of the proposed development, however, he had good friends whose homes back up to the site. Commissioner Johnson stated that the zoning of the new parcel, which is being discussed as designated public Open Space, would have a significant impact on this matter. Commissioner Laube indicated a covenant could be added to ensure the property remains in this designation. Mr. Faracy inquired how the residents could be certain that this has been done. Planning Associate Ericson advised that before the land swap could occur, a contract and language would be drafted to effectuate that swap, and the terms of this agreement would be spelled out within the development contract. He stated that the transfer of land would occur with the stipulations set forth in the development contract, including other actions in conjunction with that, such as the dedication of an easement over the entirety of that land, whether that be by conservancy easement to an outside party, or protective covenants that are placed on the deed. He indicated those issues would be clarified in significant detail in the language that would create the transfer of property ownership, and these issues would be all be resolved prior to the land swap. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the Planning Commission and the City Council could indicate that the 8 acres of the Midland Videen site was to be for perpetual public use and remain undisturbed, however, the next Council might feel differently, and there was no protection that would prohibit the City from changing its mind at some point in the future, short of the dedication of the land to an outside party by a conservancy easement. He added that the one- acre parcel on the corner was public land, and the City was currently making the case that they could transfer this land and turn it into commercial development, with the trade off being that the City obtains 8 acres in return, however in essence, the City is proposing to sell off public land, and there is nothing to prevent the City from doing this again in the future. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 25 Mr. Cunningham suggested the land might be dedicated to the Park District as a park, as it would likely be much more difficult to sell a park. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the entire City Hall campus area is considered a park. He advised that the City has powers of condemnation and eminent domain, therefore, if the City desires to do something, it will. Community Development Director Jopke stated that staff would consult with the City Attorney to determine what alternatives exist, and report this information to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Commissioner Laube stated that a covenant would not ensure that the land would not be developed, however, it would be more difficult to do, it would cost money, and the citizens would have to be notified. He pointed out that the Planning Commission does not have the final say in this matter, as the City Council could always overrule their recommendation. Mr. Faracy commented that given the number of residents present, the concerns might not be as great as they appear. He stated that if something could be done to make the future development of this land more difficult at minimum, it would definitely make this proposal more acceptable to the residents in the area. Chairperson Peterson stated that it was very clear in the discussions that a covenant approach or other legal method to deal with this would be desirable, and he would not anticipate any argument with the current City Council in this regard. He pointed out however, if this development was to move forward, the remaining land would primarily be wetland and a highland strip behind the wetland, and that wetland could not be eliminated. He stated that at best, the wetland would have to be mitigated at a 2 to 1 ration, therefore, if you attempted to eliminate it, you would actually have to create more of it, and the question at that point would be where to put it. Commissioner Johnson stated that the wetland would have to be mitigated on the subject property, and it was previously discussed that the mitigation would occur in the developable area of the residential development north of City Hall. He added that this was where the wetland credits would come into play, which would almost ensure that this area could not be developed. Chairperson Peterson stated that ultimately, this may be the strongest argument, in that this would not only be a natural area that was desirable to preserve as such, but it would also be wetland, making it nearly impossible to do anything else with it. Commissioner Thomas inquired what type of notification had been provided to the residents of the townhouse complex at Landmark Estates, with regard to this development process. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 26 Planning Associate Ericson stated that a public hearing notice was published in the Focus newspaper, and that went out to all residents. He indicated all property owners within 350 feet of the City Hall, the Community Center, the Midland Videen property and the remnant parcel were notified of this public hearing by mail. Commissioner Thomas stated that she has lived at the Landmark Estates for four years, however, she had only learned that this public hearing was taking place because she was invited to attend the meeting in her role as a Commissioner. She added that a large number of residents at the Landmark Estates do not receive the Focus newspaper, which is not delivered to the doors of the townhouses, nor did it appear that any other form of notification was provided. She pointed out that there are as many individuals who live in this townhouse complex, which is directly adjacent to the Community Center and the subject parcel, as there are residents who live along St. Stephen Street. Planning Associate Ericson stated that staff could examine this, to determine how the notification is distributed, and this would be addressed in future mailings. Chairperson Peterson inquired how the management of a community property distributes messages to individual residents. He indicated some communities have Apartment Owners Associations, which are groups of property owners who work in a cooperative effort to inform each other regarding bad tenants, and so forth. He advised that if there were such an organization in Mounds View, this might be a good mechanism for the distribution of public notices. Commissioner Thomas stated that the Landmark Estates was not a secured building, in which the residents utilize locked mailboxes. She explained that these were individual addresses that could have been notified by mail, however, were not. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the Landmark Estates property was indicated on the notification map. Chairperson Peterson stated that the notification was provided to the owner of this rental property. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the City could take that extra step, possibly by personally contacting the management of these properties to work out a system to ensure that future notifications are posted, and if necessary, a staff person could go to the property and hand deliver the notices. Commissioner Johnson inquired if public notification was required for a preliminary meeting such as this. Chairperson Peterson advised that this meeting was advertised as a public hearing, and therefore, the notification process was subject to the same requirements as any other public hearing. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 27 Commissioner Thomas stated that residents who utilize a box mail system, and do not have an individual mailbox at their home would be difficult to notify. She indicated that this should be considered with a project of this magnitude. Planning Associate Ericson stated that staff could obtain the addresses from the management of these properties, and they do not need to be sent to the specific individual, but simply to the resident at that address. He explained that staff could attempt to obtain address lists although this could result in the mailing of hundreds of notices above and beyond the City’s legal obligation. Commissioner Thomas indicated that when the Community Center went forward, there was much discussion in the Landmark Estates and surrounding areas regarding the lack of notification. She stated that residents of rental properties might be short-term residents, however, the individuals who reside in the townhouses are generally long-term residents, some of whom have resided in the area for years. Planning Associate Ericson stated that at the point that the Planning Commission takes action on this item, staff would re-notify, and do their utmost to ensure that all residents are notified. Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the discussions pertaining to the proposed walkway around the wetland at this point. Mr. Cunningham stated that they were in clear agreement with staff regarding the need for a walkway along the Highway 10 frontage, and as previously discussed with the Parks and Recreation and Planning Commissions, they would, as part of their development and at their cost, fund a trail along the east side of the wetland that would link the Community Center to the trail along Highway 10. Mr. Cunningham stated that they first became aware of the next step in this process, during a meeting with staff and the City Engineers, at which time, a trail was proposed along the west side of the wetland as well. He indicated that they object to this, because in addition to the two trails, they have agreed to link the existing sidewalk adjacent to the Community Center to the trail at the intersection of Edgewood Drive and Highway 10, which would create a complete loop around this location. He stated that they did not see the necessity for this, and that it would be difficult to construct a trail in the area between the development and the wetland. Mr. Faracy inquired how close the proposed trail around the wetlands would be to the houses. He indicated he has walked on the trail located on the other side of the highway, and feels as though he is walking through these residents’ backyards. He stated that he was not certain that this would be terribly appealing to the residents that live in this area. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commission with the SEH concept plan. He stated that at this point, there was considerable latitude as to where that path could be located. He explained that if the storm water holding pond is constructed along the back side of these properties, the pathway could be located between the storm water pond and the wetlands to Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 28 provide a separation of as much as 100 to 150 feet. He indicated this plan was still in a very preliminary stage, and was provided for discussion purposes only, at this point. Mr. Faracy stated that he would find this plan acceptable, as long as the buffer remains. Chairperson Peterson stated that the trail in this area was a good idea, although he shared Mr. Faracy’s concern. He indicated however, he was not certain whether or not it would be beneficial to construct a trail between the proposed development and the wetland on the west side, as those who desired to walk in this area could walk through the parking lot. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the walking path on the north end of the site would be located within the wetland, or on the Community Center property beyond the wetland boundary. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the Community Center parking lot is located at the property line, and the wetland is located at the edge of the parking lot. He pointed out that according to the site plan, there does not appear to be sufficient room to construct a walking path without disturbing the wetland in that area. Commissioner Kaden stated that the SEH concept indicates that the proposed pond would be partially located in the wetland as well as on the highland. He inquired if an earthen berm would be constructed to separate the wetland from the highland. Planning Associate Ericson reiterated that this was a preliminary drawing, and the storm water pond would not be constructed in the location indicated on the draft. He explained that the pond would be located completely upon the high ground, and would not encroach into the wetland. He stated that the applicant would come back at the next meeting with a site plan, which would indicate what they believe is an appropriate solution for a pedestrian walkway in that area, and they would have another opportunity to refine that proposal to the point that the City is in agreement with the plan. Mr. Peterson inquired if economic forecasts pertaining to the number of jobs that would be generated by this development were available for discussion. He inquired if the applicant was requesting Tax Increment Financing. Mr. Cunningham stated that a Walgreens drugstore generally creates a combination of approximately 25 part-time, and primarily full-time jobs. He indicated they had previously brought forward information regarding the salary ranges for Walgreens positions, a good number of which are professional managerial type jobs. He stated that Culver’s Restaurant creates many part-time opportunities, which are primarily suited to teens, in addition to some managerial positions. He indicated he would meet with a representative of Culver’s the following day, and would obtain further information at that time. Mr. Cunningham stated that they are not requesting any Tax Increment Financing on this project. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 29 Chairperson Peterson stated that the applicant had previously provided traffic projections for the peak traffic hours at a specific store size. He requested the applicant bring this information for review at the next meeting. Mr. Cunningham stated that he would provide this information to staff, to allow for the Commissions review prior to the meeting. He extended his appreciation to the Planning Commission members for their time and perseverance in this process. Chairperson Peterson stated that the public forum for issues pertaining to Highway 10 would be held on July 11th . He indicated all citizens were welcome to attend this meeting. 7. Discussion Regarding an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Code Pertaining to Sheds and Accessory Buildings. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the need to revise the City Code with regard to the conditional use permit process pertaining to sheds and oversize garages has been discussed for some time. At their last regular meeting, the City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to examine the Code, provide recommendations for revisions, and present an ordinance amendment for the Council’s review. Planning Associate Ericson stated that rather than attempting to draft an ordinance without preliminary input from the Planning Commission, staff compiled some questions for discussion regarding how these issues should be approached. He explained, for example, if 216 square feet is the limit over which a conditional use permit is required, should it be higher? If so, how much higher, and at what point should a conditional use permit be required? Commissioner Laube stated that in reviewing the staff report, he had thought that staff might go back through the files for the last two to three years, and provide the Commission with an average, in terms of the smallest and largest requests that have been granted for conditional use permits for sheds. He explained that this might provide a better idea of where to begin this process. Planning Associate Ericson advised that without going through this research, the average request increases every year, for example, the average for the year 2000 is 400 square feet per shed. He stated that staff could examine the files, and provide this information without great difficulty. Commissioner Hegland stated that the reason for this examination is that 400 square feet was not sufficiently large enough. Planning Associate Ericson explained that if the maximum limit allowed for a shed is raised to exceed 400 square feet, this would encompass the requirement for a single car garage size, and if they allow a 450 or 500 square-foot shed, why would they prohibit two garages? He pointed out that for a larger lot, they might wish to completely eliminate the conditional use permit provision for a shed, for example, if a property owner has Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 30 40,000 square feet of backyard area, a provision could be written into the Code to exempt them from that requirement. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the examination process might require several meetings before staff comes back with an ordinance. He indicated he had also complied a list of issues for consideration with regard to garages, including whether or not the maximum size should be increased from 952 square feet. He advised that this was originally 864 square feet, with an upper limit of 1,264 square feet, and the difference between the two was the basis for the 400 square-foot shed size. He explained that currently, the maximum size for a garage without a conditional use permit is 952 square feet with an upper limit of 1,400 square feet, and if this was increased to 1,000 square feet without a conditional use permit, it would be consistent with what the previous requirements, in terms of the relationship to the 400 square-foot shed, however, this would not be the case if they desire to increase the size of the shed as well. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the intent of this undertaking is to make the process easier for the residents, and to create an environment that is more accommodating to their improvement plans. He explained that it was extremely frustrating for staff to have to explain to an individual who would like to put up a shed over the weekend that the process would involve two months time, however, there must be a balance, and these are the issues that the Commission is requested to discuss. Commissioner Miller stated that one of the purposes for the conditional use permit is to regulate those uses that are not permitted, such as an auto repair business. Commissioner Hegland stated that this could be regulated without a conditional use permit. Commissioner Johnson explained that they could control these issues through other means, such as prohibiting a driveway up to the structure. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the City does not currently allow two garages, however, the question arises in the definition of a garage. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that the Ordinance prohibits the operation of a business. Planning Associate Ericson advised that a business is permitted, however, it must be in keeping with the Code requirements. He explained that there are criteria pertaining to home occupations such as, there shall be no alterations not typically found in a house, there is no outside storage, and the business shall not create any nuisance situations. He explained that there are other issues as well, however, through the conditional use permit process, the City could be very specific, and place requirements above and beyond these criteria. He pointed out that the City does not prohibit an individual from making crafts for craft shows, or things of this nature. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the conditional use permit process provided information regarding the types of items that are stored in the structures. Planning Associate Ericson stated that there was no reliable information in terms of the percentage of shed owners who utilize the space for the storage of specific items. He explained that at the time the applicants come before the City to request a conditional use permit for a shed Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 31 or garage, they are required to establish a need for the structure, and they typically indicate a very general reason. Chairperson Peterson stated that this ultimately amounts to “stuff,” and the need to store it. He pointed out that it was generally better to store “stuff” inside a building rather than out in the yard, however, the property could be overbuilt at some point, and perhaps the Commission should consider a clause pertaining to the percentage of the yard coverage. He inquired regarding the current percentage of coverage allowed. Planning Associate Ericson stated that no more than 20 percent of the backyard can be covered by accessory storage space. He indicated this was previously 25 percent, however, during the last Code revision, the City had desired to allow a greater amount of coverage. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that this was a minimal requirement. Planning Associate Ericson stated that this was correct, adding that 20 percent of the backyard of an acre lot could allow for another house. Commissioner Hegland stated that the intent was to avoid pole buildings and structures of this nature. Planning Associate Ericson stated that since the Commission has not had the opportunity to review the questions presented by staff, this item could be placed on the agenda for the meeting on June 21st. He indicated by that time, everyone would have had an opportunity to review the questions staff has compiled. He reiterated that this would be a very extensive process, and the Commission may wish to take time between this meeting and the next to consider some of the answers. Commissioner Hegland requested staff could research adjoining communities to determine what they allow, as this would likely impact the discussions. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the Code does not address the size of the garage in the case of a walkout rambler with a lower level two-car garage in the back. He advised that the Code simply states that a specific amount of square-footage is allowed, however, it does not specify whether this is based upon the footprint or the actual area. Chairperson Peterson stated that he would tend to think that the impact to the surrounding properties would be addressed with the footprint rather than the total square-footage. He noted a previous application where a resident had desired to construct a garage on the back of the house, however, it was unclear as to which side of the property was the front, and the Commission may wish to consider this as well. He advised that regardless of the type of revisions that are made, there would be some oddball cases, however, the attempt would be to address the majority of the situations. Planning Associate Ericson stated that Item 6 on the second page of the staff report pertains to whether or not the Planning Commission is interested in considering some type of performance zoning criteria that would perhaps allow the larger sized garage if it were located behind the Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 32 house. He indicated the Commission felt very strongly that the appearance of the wider garages that are currently being built, which dominate the street front, do not lend well to an aesthetic curb appeal. He inquired if this was an issue the Commission would wish to consider if the garage were oriented away from the street so that only the house was visible. Commissioner Hegland stated that in many of these planning designs, the house is not even visible. Chairperson Peterson stated that many upscale neighborhoods have the larger lots, and most of those have garages that angle in such a way that as you drive by you see the home, and possibly part of the garage door off to the side. He pointed out that this could not be accomplished with the smaller 75-foot lots within the City. Commissioner Hegland advised that flexibility was very important in this consideration, because they were dealing with redevelopment, rather than new development. Commissioner Johnson stated that the Commission has been seeing variance requests for garages that are larger than the square-footage of the house. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the last time the Commission examined the Code, in terms of Ordinance 620, a provision was included which required a conditional use permit any time the garage is larger than the house. He suggested this could be removed. He explained that from staff’s perspective, this is an administrative nightmare. He explained that if there is a 600 square-foot house, and the applicant has a 600 square-foot garage that he would like to expand to a 650 square-foot two-car garage, he would be required to obtain a conditional use permit. He pointed out that this provision appeared to be a very good idea at the time, however, after it was implemented, it became apparent that all of the ramifications were not necessarily taken into consideration, and the Commission may wish to examine this further. Commissioner Johnson stated that he agreed with this. He pointed out that you may have two or three individuals living in a small house, with a boat, a motorcycle, two cars, and may have other items to store in their garage. He advised that if they were limited to a small garage based upon the size of the house, these items would end up in the backyard. Commissioner Hegland stated that the size should be based upon whether or not the proposal represents an improvement to the property as well, in that people do not generally tend to spend money on projects that do not make much sense. Commissioner Laube suggested that rather than basing the size upon the total square-footage of the foundation, perhaps this should be based upon the total square footage of the house. He explained that he would not desire to leave this provision in the Code, however, he would not wish to see garages excessively larger than the house simply because they have taken it out. Commissioner Johnson stated that the requirement that accessory structures be complementary to the house would prevent many such problems. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 33 Commissioner Laube stated that there would still be cases of this nature, and he would prefer to be able to control them to some extent. He noted a previous application the Commission had considered, in which the resident had a very small house, and had requested to construct a very large garage on the lot. He advised that this type of proposal would be allowed. Planning Associate Ericson stated that this was correct to a point, in that the property owner could have a 900 square-foot garage, per se, which on that applicant’s lot, with that particular house, would have been a very large garage, however, staff would hesitate putting anything in the Code that would be based upon the square-footage of the house, because this would be even more difficult to administer from staff’s perspective. He indicated this made more sense in the footprint, however, it would be much more difficult to administer. He suggested it might be tied to the size of the lot, up to a point. Commissioner Laube pointed out that if the house was 600 square feet, you could increase that by one and a quarter to one and a half percent. Planning Associate Ericson explained that this would generate more conditional use permits, and the City was attempting to avoid that if at all possible. He stated that if a 900 square-foot garage was acceptable, although he was no proponent of building an imbalanced lot, however, perhaps they could indicate that anyone could have this size of a garage, which would be fair. He stated that he would not think it would be fair to state that a neighboring property, which has additional square-footage in their house should be permitted to have a larger garage. He stated that he would propose this provision be eliminated completely, and all property owners be permitted to have 952 or 1,000 square feet. He pointed out that if they could not meet the 20 percent rear yard coverage requirement, this would be legitimate cause for a conditional use permit. Chairperson Peterson stated that there were a wide variety of lot sizes in Mounds View, and there are many substandard lots, some of which have only the smallest single car garages, which are not very attractive on the current market. He stated that the Commission should ensure that what is done is practical for all residents who wish to improve their property. Planning Associate Ericson stated that staff would survey the surrounding communities to determine what they allow, and would attempt to determine how other cities handle conditional use permits for sheds and garages, and to bring this information before the Planning Commission at their next meeting. He requested the Commission members contact staff prior to the meeting with any thoughts or suggestions they may have, so that they can proceed with this matter. Commissioner Thomas inquired how these issues might impact a house with living space above an attached garage. Planning Associate Ericson stated that these properties could potentially be affected. He explained that properties could only have one garage, and sometimes that is a hardship for properties with attached garages or lots on which the garage could not be further expanded. He stated that this discussion would not change the fact that there would be attached garages, and that the only option for someone with an attached garage, if there is no room to expand, is to convert that to living space, or build a new garage. Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 34 Commissioner Thomas stated that many of the rambler style homes in the area have attached single-car garages that have not yet been updated, however, because there are similar conditions with regard to fence lines and setbacks, this would cause a severe hardship for these property owners in terms of expansion, and the requirements would be nearly impossible to meet on these lots. Planning Associate Ericson stated that any revisions that are made to the Code should not impact these individuals, and they must ensure that they do not create additional difficulties, which could make their situations worse. 8. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke stated that at the May 22nd City Council meeting, the Council approved four conditional use permits for oversized garages and sheds, which were recommended by the Planning Commission, including the conditional use permit for outdoor storage at Ace Supply Company. He stated that the Council was introduced to the Walgreens Planned Unit Development at the Work Session the previous Monday. He indicated there was also discussion pertaining to the Mermaid Hotel and Banquet Center project, and the Council gave preliminary approval to a Tax Increment Financing request by the Mermaid, and directed staff to continue the negotiation of the development agreement. He explained that the Planning Commission would ultimately be examining this proposal in terms of the land use issues, and staff anticipates that a Planned Unit Development application will be developed and brought forward on this project. He advised that the Council also indicated a consensus to approve some additions to the Tax Increment policy of the City. Community Development Director Jopke stated that another area of Council discussion pertains to the area at the north end of Greenfield Park. He explained that the Rice Creek Watershed District has indicated a desire to construct additional open water ponds in this area, and have asked if the City has an interest in pursuing this and if so, what their expectations would be. He stated that the Rice Creek Watershed District has approximately a half a million dollars that they are willing to contribute to this project, with the initial concept being open water ponds with some islands, as well as some walking trails around the ponding areas, most of which would be funded by the Watershed District. He stated that this proposal could potentially create a nice amenity in this area. Chairperson Peterson inquired if this was the area directly north of Greenfield Park. Community Development Director Jopke stated that this was correct, in addition to an area further to the south. Chairperson Peterson stated that a portion of this property is a right-of-way for a future roadway, and various park improvements have been proposed for development in this area. Community Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 35 Development Director Jopke stated that the Watershed District has been discussing the construction of improved divided pathways in the area, in addition to maintaining the natural environment. Community Development Director Jopke stated that the Highway 10 Steering Committee has been meeting, and examining all of the previous studies and common issues that have been generated by those studies. He advised that at the first meeting, Bill Morrish from the University of Minnesota Design Center was present to discuss arterial roadways and different means to consider those. He indicated there was participation from Dan Soler from Ramsey County at both meetings, which has been very helpful in terms of providing an understanding of the Ramsey County perspective. Community Development Director Jopke stated that at the last meeting that was held the previous evening, the Steering Committee examined some of the issues and concepts pertaining to the roadway, and established their priorities for those issues. He stated that the highest priorities included the name change and speed limit on Highway 10, and they were currently examining all of the issues pertaining to trailways and buffers as well. Community Development Director Jopke stated that the redevelopment of Highway 10 was a two-phase process. He explained that the initial phase involves looking at the important items in an action plan, and the priorities that are important to the City. He indicated the Committee has identified those priorities at this point in the process. He advised that a community meeting would be held on July 11th, at 7:00 p.m., in Council Chamber, and this meeting would be televised in order to present those priorities to the public to ensure that they are in keeping with views of the community. He explained that following this meeting, a report would be made to the City Council indicating those priorities, at which time the Council would have the opportunity to give their approval. Community Development Director Jopke stated that during the second phase in this process, they would prepare a detailed action plan of those steps that the City could take to guide the future development along the Highway 10 corridor, including short-term safety measures that could be made immediately. He stated that this would also involve researching various funding sources including Ramsey County, and producing a long-term plan for Highway 10 and a definite action plan to proceed in that regard. He stated that the emphasis was to move beyond the study stage, and ensure that something is accomplished to better the corridor. Community Development Director Jopke stated that he, Mayor Coughlin and Chairperson Peterson are also participating in workshops with the I-35W Corridor Coalition, having attended the first of those meetings the previous week. He advised that they were examining the entire Coalition with other communities and their representatives, to discuss what they identify as common interests in neighborhood areas, and their definition of livable communities. He stated that the ultimate objective of these discussions is to bring forward projects that the Coalition supports, and within his group, he has clearly identified Highway 10 and livability as important issues and potential projects for the Coalition to examine. He advised that with the support of Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 36 the Coalition, the City could have access to additional funding sources to assist with the Highway 10 redevelopment as well. Chairperson Peterson stated that a representative from the city of Blaine was seated at his table, and their interests in the Highway 10 redevelopment were very similar to those of the City. He stated that this was a great opportunity, which may result in additional funding sources that were not previously available. Community Development Director Jopke stated that a reception would be held in Council Chambers on Thursday evening, from 5:00 to 6:30 p.m., to honor the hard work of Representative Haake, Senator Novak, and City Attorney Long with regard to the airport legislation, which was passed. He encouraged the public to attend. B. Withdrawal of Meinert Variance Application Planning Associate Ericson stated that Harry Meinert, 2195 Pinewood Drive has decided not to construct a garage, and therefore, has withdrawn his application for a variance. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Commissioner Laube stated that he had volunteered to serve as a member of the Highway 10Steering Committee, however, he has since returned to school, and has found that there is a conflict in his schedule. He indicated he had many ideas and would like to be involved with the Steering Committee, however, his school would continue through the end of July, and therefore, he would offer this seat to another Planning Commission member who might desire to serve on the committee. Chairperson Peterson stated that this was a great opportunity to have an affect in the Highway 10 redevelopment. He indicated all of the Steering Committee members who have attended thus far have made an impact, and it was apparent that many things were going to happen as a result of these meetings. He inquired if Commissioner Thomas would be interested in serving on this committee. Commissioner Thomas stated that she would be occupied with her duties as a new Planning Commission member, and therefore, must decline. Commissioner Laube stated that he has been watching the televised meetings and is attempting to keep abreast of the proceedings. He indicated he had some thoughts on the issues, and would forward these to staff. He reiterated he truly desired to serve on this committee, however, the timing has not worked out in his favor. No further reports were considered. 10. Adjournment Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 37 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.