Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-05-2000PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting July 5, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson Stevenson at 7:02 p.m., July 5, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Acting Chairperson Stevenson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Kaden, Miller, and Thomas. Members Absent: Chairperson Peterson and Commissioner Laube (excused) Also Present: Planner Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke and Council Liaison Stigney. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Local Water Management Plan Update 2 Planning Case ZC00-002, 2387 Highway 10. Public Hearing and Discussion 4 Regarding a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Walgreens Drugstore at the Northeast Corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive. TOLD Development Company, Represented by Terry Moses. Special Planning Case SP-079-00. Discussion Regarding the First Draft of 14 Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Accessory Buildings. Staff Reports / Items of Information 17 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 17 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Citizens’ Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Approval of Minutes A. May 17, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden to approve the May 17, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected. Ayes - 7 Nays - 0 The motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Local Water Management Plan Update Rocky Keehn, of SEH, Inc., explained that the goal for the evening is to receive any last feedback from the Commission before update goes to the City Council worksession. The plan incorporates comments made in previous meetings, descriptions on maps are more detailed, and Watershed descriptions have been added. Mr. Keehn advised that a few more edits may need to be made; also, highway descriptions would need to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan update. Commissioner Miller pointed out that Figures 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 were not clear. Mr. Keehn explained the final plan would be in color. He had not made color copies to conserve on costs. Commissioner Miller commented that Pages 3 and 17 discuss land uses and how Mounds View has developed and stabilized. She questioned if anything should be included regarding “redevelopment” issues, as the City is concerned about redevelopment. Mr. Keehn agreed that the issue could be further addressed. Commissioner Miller stated although there is not a great deal of land left to be developed, there are redevelopment processes going on that should be included. Commissioner Hegland asked what they would consider redevelopment in regard to this plan. Mr. Keehn advised that if redevelopment in this plan entailed open space, there could be a negative impact on the City’s hydrology. For example, if a commercial business goes to industrial or vice versa, there would probably not be that much of an impact. However, if one- acre lots are converted to ¼ acre lots, those are the kind of redevelopment scenarios that could have an impact on the plan and some of its assumptions. He said they could expand this area if the Commission would like. Commissioner Hegland stated they should be specific as to how redevelopment is defined in terms of the Watershed. Acting Chairperson Stevenson stated if a building’s footprint is not going to change it is not really a redevelopment issue for Water Management. Commissioner Hegland noted if the square footage of a home is doubled it is considered redevelopment, however, he does not think it would be necessary to put that in this plan. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Mr. Keehn advised that he has seen an occurrence in many communities where 20 to 30 homes were previously built with a house and possibly a garage, and are now built with a house, a double garage, a barn in the back, and the patio. This could impact the storm sewer systems with street flooding, a low spot that never used to flood could begin flooding. He advised a lot of plans do not address that, but that may be a problem in the future if redevelopment increases the impervious surface areas. Mr. Keehn noted that if everyone in the Watershed District were to build a new house and a double garage, there would be problems. Acting Chairperson Stevenson inquired if they should expand on the redevelopment issue in the plan. Mr. Keehn said if he read this plan the way it is, it would imply that conditions have not and will not change. Perhaps the plan should explain that although planned development may basically stay the same, there could be other issues related to redevelopment. He suggested that as people look for changes in their property, they should look at the “big picture” and see what the potential impact is. Commissioner Hegland stated he finds it hard to believe that a typical homeowner in Mounds View would have an impact on this. Even if everyone increased the size of his or her building by 50 percent, he cannot believe it would affect this to that large of a degree that it would have to be dealt with. Commissioner Hegland suggested, perhaps, the types of things to be included would be a change of the topography of the property or large projects, such as big parking lots or something similar. He said he would like to make sure that the plan does not restrict homeowner development in any way, but rather keep it restricted to the larger projects. Acting Chairperson Stevenson pointed out that in Mounds View, redevelopment is an issue, and it is becoming more and more of an issue. He concurred with Commissioner Miller that they are really not addressing redevelopment in this document. He stated it should be addressed that water management should consider redevelopment, as it is an issue in Mounds View. Mr. Keehn said the way the plan reads now is that it almost implies that the system is good and everything will be okay. However, it sounds like some redevelopment issues could cause potential negative impacts and they should be addressed in the plan. He stated he will add some additional language to flag that point and to let people know that there is a concern. Acting Chairperson Stevenson said there are definitely some issues with redevelopment. If they were to redevelop a large parcel that happens to be a mobile home park, the implications to water management would be great. He stated some development will happen in the City and he believes the plan needs a statement regarding it. Mr. Keehn said he would work with Staff to develop language that reflects both sides of this concern. He added this would not include anything that would restrict a property owner from constructing a garage. Acting Chairperson Stevenson directed Staff to draft a resolution for the next meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case ZC00-002 Property Involved: 2387 Highway 10 Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Walgreens Drugstore at the Northeast Corner of Highway 10 and Edgewood Drive. Applicant: TOLD Development Company (Represented by Terry Moses) ______________________________________________________________________________ The applicant’s representative was present. Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Bob Cunningham, of TOLD Development Company, has made application for Planned Unit Development to develop the parcel commonly referred to as the remnant parcel, and a portion of the open space referred to as the Midland Videen property. The Planned Unit Development is to construct a Walgreens and a restaurant, which is tentatively planned to be a Culver's restaurant. The remaining eight acres would be deeded to the City with the development of this proposal. He commented this has been discussed with the Planning Commission at the last couple of meetings and there have been some very significant and long discussions on this subject. He also informed the Commission that Mr. Cunningham was not able to attend the meeting but that Terry Moses would be able to address any questions. Planner Ericson indicated that the revised site plan shows a trailway along the Highway 10 right of way. It shows the existing sidewalk being extended down to Highway 10 from the Community Center. A trailway connecting from the Highway 10 trail would be constructed through the open space and terminating at the Community Center parking lot. The plans to have a trailway encircling the wetland have been eliminated due to the impacts to the wetland. As the Commission is aware, the wetland does go right up to the property by the Community Center and is very tight to the property line as proposed for both of the developable lots. The exact location of the trailway is not set in stone, other than it would be located between the relocated stormwater pond and the existing wetlands. Planner Ericson advised that they had discussed with Ramsey County Traffic Engineer Dan Soler about the proposed right-in access off of Highway 10. While Mr. Soler is not in the position to approve the proposed plans because the County has not yet obtained ownership of the highway, it was his consideration that if they were to be the custodians of Highway 10 that the right-in access would be allowed with minimal improvements to the shoulder to support the added traffic. The other issue discussed with Dan Soler was the location of the proposed trailway along Highway 10. The developer was indicating that to make the project work they would need to maximize the site area and would have a difficult time putting in the trailway and the amount of space on either side of the trailway on their property. Mr. Soler felt the Highway 10 right-of-way would not be an inappropriate location for a trailway, so long as it would be as far away from the driving surface as possible. There is approximately 50 feet of open space in between the pavement and the property line, some of which is used for drainage and storm water Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 purposes. As long as the trailway does not encroach or change the drainage pattern, or take up area that would be utilized for drainage or the holding of storm water, there would not be a problem whatsoever. In terms of providing a trailway along Highway 10, what shows on this plan can be accomplished. Acting Chairperson Stevenson noted he thinks this trailway issue is something that will be in discussion all along Highway 10 and this is just the first of the City's discussions with the County as far as going within the right-of-way. The City was not going to encroach on property owners, they would actually encroach into the old right-of-way. He said he is happy to hear that a trailway all along Highway 10 should not be a problem once the state has turned over the county roads. Planner Ericson advised that another issue regarding trailways dealt with pedestrian safety. While there is the marked pedestrian crosswalk on the north side of Edgewood Drive, there is no pedestrian crosswalk across Highway 10 on the south side of Edgewood Drive where the Walgreens and proposed Culver’s would be located. The developer indicated that it would be a good idea and Staff concurred that there should be some kind of landscaping alongside the trailway that would be in the right-of-way to prevent people from crossing in an unmarked area. They could add some physical and perceived impediments so pedestrians would not cross at that location. Planner Associate Ericson acknowledged that people will cross where they want regardless, however, landscaping and something decorative could deter enough people to make a difference. Commissioner Miller inquired what kind of material the trailway within the right-of-way would be. Ericson said it has been discussed to be 7-foot wide paved bituminous trail, similar to the one across the street, and would be maintained by the City. Planner Ericson advised it looks as though it would be a sufficient area and there would not need to be any filling or grading to put in this trail. It is 50 feet wide and the ditch comprises approximately 30 feet of that, so there is sufficient space and it is even possible to put in some low profile plantings along the trailway. He stated there were also discussions of putting in decorative lighting which could be located on either side of the trail. He indicated that Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works, is working with Northern States Power for some lighting ideas, and they do have two different styles of light fixtures that are planned for installation on Edgewood Drive. Those styles could also be incorporated into a trailway that could carry over to the wetland, however, that has not been discussed yet. Planner Ericson advised there have been no changes or additions to the site plan other than showing the trailways. Also, they are still waiting on the final plan for the drainage. The City Engineer has worked with the developer's engineers and they have all the information they need to determine how big the relocated stormwater holding pond should be, where the storm sewer should be located, and the proper elevations. All that information is in the hands of the developer’s engineer and will be forthcoming; there should not be any issues that will be unresolved. He explained the pond would be sized to fit the area that’s there. It will not be sized to accommodate 100% of the flow coming through the storm sewer under Edgewood Drive, but would be sized to handle all the flow from Culver’s and Walgreens, the flow from the City Hall Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 parking lot, and the existing volume of the pond. It would also take on much of the storm water that is running through the existing storm sewer on Edgewood Drive, which currently flows untreated under Highway 10. The intent is to take stormwater off Edgewood Drive and get it filtered and cleansed before sending it back into the system. The pond would be sized to utilize the uplands that are available, not 100% of the volume. He stated he thinks this is a great benefit to the City, that they can look at ponding from a more regional perspective, rather than on a single development scenario. It should reduce the possibility of downstream flooding and will be a water quality benefit for the City as well. Planner Ericson advised the preliminary plat in the staff report indicated the plat would be named Mounds View City Hall Addition. There are no changes to the plat, and copies will be made available at the next meeting. The easement area for the sign was discussed concerning rights to the sign easement area where the Bel Rae ballroom sign was. When the City purchased the Bel Rae ballroom and constructed the Community Center they also took over ownership of that easement area. He explained it is likely the City would vacate that easement area and if there is a need to create another area for signage purposes they could address that issue on its own at some point in the future, rather than trying to retain some portion of the existing easement area to meet the needs of the second developable lot. A vacation of the original Edgewood Drive right of way would also be required and is shown on the plat as being vacated. The wetland area would be covered by an easement, something that Rice Creek Watershed District would require, and given that it would become the City’s property he does not think there would be an issue with dedicating an easement. If the City is the deed holder, an easement may not even be required. Planner Ericson reported the Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the plans and because of the improvement to the water quality and additional ponding and storm water capacity they are very excited about this plan. They have indicated that as soon as the final specifications are forwarded to them it should be approved. Planner Ericson advised the developer is proposing 146 parking spaces. The City Code requires a little more than that, however, there is a benefit of having both uses side by side. There would be a cross access in parking easement granted so that in times of peak use patrons from either parcel could use the other’s parking. Staff felt that would compensate for the deficiency in parking. One of the intents of the Planned Unit Development process is that they look at these issues and determine if there are creative ways to address specific requirements, such as parking and setbacks in ways that are not normally handled by the zoning code. The Planned Unit Development process allows the City to deal with them in a more creative and beneficial way that would allow for development to occur in an area where it might otherwise not occur. Planner Ericson indicated that staff had contracted with a commercial appraiser to appraise both the City’s remnant parcel and also on the eight acres that would be transferred to the City. He noted that Staff had handed out a copy of the summary page which shows the valuations on the land. The appraisal indicates that the City’s parcel has a $166,000 value while the eight acres of Midland Videen property is valued at $161,000. It is very similar in terms of value, which is presuming that it could be developed as a stand-alone parcel. If the two parcels were joined together and appraised, the value of the two parcels combined would be more than their parts. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 Regarding public notification for this meeting, Planner Ericson informed the Commission that staff sent out approximately 360 notices and are doing all they can to get the word out. He reported they put much information on the City’s website about the development proposal, including a copy of the last staff report. They also put a notice in the Mounds View Matters, which was just recently delivered to residents. He stated the City is trying to assure they obtain as much input as possible. From this meeting, he hoped to be able to have a resolution drafted subject to the information that has been presented from him, the public, and the developer. The resolution could either represent approval or denial of this development proposal and could be prepared for the next Commission meeting. Acting Chairperson Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Kyle Longstead, 7901 Edgewood Drive, questioned if the City would put an Embers up in this location knowing that there is an Embers by Northown. He compared this to putting in another Walgreens so close to the one by Northtown. He feels they are saturating the area with similar product with the possibility of another empty building two or three years down the road. Commissioner Johnson responded that according to law they cannot deny another drug store because they already have one. Mr. Longstead said he understands that, however, he hopes some thought has gone into what they are developing. He stated he is a worried they are going to have an empty building that no one will rent or buy. Acting Chairperson Stevenson said this issue was a big concern, especially when Walgreens was going to go in on County Road I, which was the original proposal and was even closer to Northtown. He stated they asked the same question of saturation to the developer and he convinced them that the drug stores are two-fold. Walgreens relies on local people who can walk to it, and there are a lot of senior citizens in the area. Also, it will be the destination of people driving northwest on Highway 10. He explained the developer wanted a Walgreens location with easy access. That is why they wanted the location on this side of the Highway. He stated that in answer to Mr. Longstead's question, the developer convinced most of the Commission that it would be an viable operation in this location. Commissioner Kaden stated he attended a land use and planning seminar where a presenter who taught the seminar had practiced in land use law for over 30 years. She informed them it actually violates the U.S. Constitution in some way for them to determine they cannot have a Walgreens here because there is one down the road. He explained if they meet all the conditions, the Commission cannot consider the close location issue. Mr. Longstead noted it is not Walgreens in particular he has a problem with, he has a problem with the saturation. Commissioner Kaden said he understands that, he grew up in Mounds View and every time a new gas station went up on Highway 10 another one went out of business. He did not understand why they kept adding more. However, he learned the Council and Planning Commission cannot say there are too many gas stations and they are not going to approve another one. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Commissioner Thomas stated she would like to clarify they are not discussing a problem of law, as this is not a private property for sale. There is no problem of law when this is City property they would be trading. It is their job as the Planning Commission to determine if this is the proper use for City property and whether or not they would like to trade that land to be developed into retail property. She explained that, at this point, being City property, there is NO law requiring them to allow any development whatsoever, so they should be very careful quoting Constitutional references in deciding whether or not they want to develop this land. Commissioner Thomas also commented that this is the opportunity to hear the community voice on whether or not they want to see a building put up across the street from the City Hall. There is no U.S. Constitution violation for someone to come and say they do not want to see a building here that could go out of business. Commissioner Johnson stated they also had many community meetings on what types of uses should be sought in Mounds View and a lot of it was restaurants and another drug store. That is why they are seeing this development going forward. Commissioner Thomas responded she is not against the possibility of this land being developed, however, it is their responsibility to decide what is there and no one should be saying at this point that they have to allow a Walgreens because that is not the case. The City can decide whether or not to trade the land for that development. Commissioner Johnson stated Commissioner Thomas is correct, but if they did not allow Walgreens here he would guarantee Walgreens would not go away, they would be back in another spot of this highway. Commissioner Thomas said that is their responsibility as a corporation, but the Planning Commission should decide if it should be there. Commissioner Kaden stated they do not have to trade the City lot for them to develop this Walgreens. Mr. Videen, however, wants to sell his property and those 3 ½ acres of upland behind the residents' houses can be developed subject to the wetlands. He stated he personally would think that woods behind the houses and open wetlands with a Walgreens on this site would be more palatable than a development stuck in their backyards. Acting Chairperson Stevenson clarified Mr. Longstead's concerns as being saturation and the possibility of an empty building a few years from now. He said he appreciates that concern, which would be a concern of anyone, including the Commission. Acting Chairperson Stevenson stated that, at this time, he feels good about the situation and does not feel they will have an empty building in the near future. Doris Hamline, 3034 Ardmore, asked if this had been brought to Springsted, the consultant group hired to help with redevelopment and safety issues along Highway 10. Community Development Director Jopke said they are aware of it. Ms. Hamline said it seems they have concurrent discussions going on. She pointed out that the community public meeting is July 11th where it will be discussed what the community would like Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 to see happen as far as redevelopment and safety issues. Ms. Hamline suggested the City can put in all the lights and sidewalks they want but that is not going to safely transport the people they are hoping to draw into Walgreens and Culver’s. This would include the senior citizens and kids who will walk there and cross that highway to get to the movie theater and the Community Center. They may have sidewalks on either side of the street, but they still have one big open highway that they need to cross. She stated it has not been crossed safely once, and questioned how many more times will it not be crossed safely if they continue to draw more cars and more businesses into the area without fully addressing the safety issue of that highway. Acting Chairperson Stevenson responded that safety is a real concern which they have discussed and they would not allow a development to go in without addressing how Highway 10 can be maintained more safely. Acting Chairperson Stevenson stated they would not want to see another accident happen and they will address it, to make sure the developer has that foremost issue in mind before they see development go through. Ms. Hamline stated she thinks safety going back and forth across that road needs to be addressed, which she has not heard much discussion about. Terry Moses, representative of Midland Videen, said he would like to add a little more comfort to any concerns about Walgreens. He explained Walgreens looks at a site based on the population in a one-mile radius; so some stores might be two miles apart. It is farther than that to Northtown and they are not worried at all about not having enough business. He stated they will be signing a 20-year lease with options to extend, so they will be occupying that building for at least 20 years. Mr. Moses stated they have done an extensive study of this site and board approval was very positive. In response to questions, Mr. Moses reviewed the Culver’s hours of operation, and advised they will employ approximately 25 full time employees with 10 to 14 being on duty at a time. Out of the roughly 75 Walgreens in the Twin Cities, he advised that only 10 are 24-hour operations and they are in high-density areas. It is not anticipated that this would be a 24-hour store. He reviewed the hours of operation and advised Walgreens will have 12 full time employees and 30 part time employees. It will generate 600 to 800 car trips per day, and because they like to be on well-traveled roads, a lot of the cars will be people passing by the site anyway. The drive-up window cannot be used for picking up anything other than prescriptions. He assured the Planning Commission they will do a very good job in landscaping and will meet the City's requirements. He noted the site plan with dimensions and two signage proposals, one was pylon and one was monument. Mr. Moses stated he believes the City indicated they prefer a monument sign and that was agreed with today. Mr. Moses presented the site plan, noting the locations of pathways, ponds, and parcels to be traded. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the three small detention areas were still necessary because of the larger pond. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Planner Ericson advised they have not discussed the specifics, however, it could be the case that those small basins would not be required for infiltration purposes. They could provide for additional infiltration for the site and create some additional opportunity to filter sedimentation utilizing the best management practice that Rice Creek Watershed prefers. He said he thinks, at this point, that Mr. Moses is accurate in saying they are not necessary, however, he is not aware if they are going to be provided. Planner Ericson explained they would not retain any water but be a place for water to go during a heavy rainfall and there is no reason they cannot be landscaped. Acting Chairperson Stevenson asked if the square footage and appearance of this building would be similar to the store at Northtown. Mr. Moses explained the proposed store is 14,500 square feet. He stated it would be difficult to tell the difference but this store might be more like the store on University Avenue. Commissioner Kaden inquired how the developer might feel about putting some pine trees by the drive-up window to block the amplified sound some of the residents have expressed concern about. Mr. Moses responded if that is agreeable to everyone else they would agree. He commented that the p.a. system however would not be audible to anyone but the person in the car. Commissioner Hegland asked if the drug store and restaurant could be better aligned with each other in order to fit in additional parking. Mr. Moses responded that the area where most of the cars come in should be wider rather than narrower, so it may be difficult to do. Commissioner Hegland commented they discussed having the trailway along Highway 10 extend all the way to the extended sidewalk on Edgewood Drive. He asked what the plan is on the entrance to mark that for anyone using the trail, as it goes right across the entrance area. Planner Ericson responded there has not been significant thought as to how to deal with that other than some kind of signage being installed. He advised they will be looking at that not only here but all through the City as the Highway 10 trail corridor system gets implemented. Commissioner Hegland inquired if they are looking at designating that as a pedestrian crosswalk area. Planner Ericson responded something like that could be utilized, however, the problem is people coming off the highway, and he is not sure if it would be in the best interest of traffic to make it stop. He agreed, however, that it should be examined. Acting Chairperson Stevenson commented one of the things he has seen happen in busy intersections is to curve or job the bike path to slow bikers down. He explained that a berm or something at the end would require people to slow down. Planner Ericson said that is a wonderful suggestion and could be incorporated. As the trailway approaches Edgewood Drive, instead of meeting up at a 90 degree angle, it curves in at the right-of-way so people have to slow down or stop. Commissioner Hegland stated he does not think they should do anything that would obstruct a driver's visibility of that intersection, as that view will likely be more valuable. Mr. Moses Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 suggested they discuss the geometrics of the right-in so it is not just like an exit ramp on the freeway but would force people to slow down. A resident of St. Stephen Street said she does a lot of walking and the way Edgewood Drive is planned now she worries about people using it as a freeway. She stated she also worries, as they discuss putting in a trailway, that a lot of people will have to watch their step as they enter or come out with bikes, walking, or pushing children with a cart. She suggested there has to be some jog where they are not directed into the line of traffic. Planner Ericson said there was a discussion earlier this afternoon regarding having a bend with more of a radial meeting of the sidewalk to tie into the applicant's property, rather than having the trailway meet up with the sidewalk at a 90-degree angle. He explained there could also be a pedestrian crossing, not right up to the right-of-way to Highway 10, but back 15 feet to allow for greater visibility for pedestrians, bikers and vehicles. Commissioner Miller inquired if the City Council already made the decision to trade this land. Planner Ericson explained the Council had not specifically decided this but authorized Staff to explore this and he does not believe there was any type of limited negotiation or purchase agreement. The only thing the City did was act as a signer on the application so it could proceed and be considered. He explained the Council granted Staff the ability to process the application. Commissioner Thomas stated she feels they are discussing two different issues. The first is the issue of whether the developer will be able to work with the limitations and guidelines of the City to the Planning Commission’s sufficient desire. She stated she has seen every indication the developer will go to the utmost lengths to do what they would like them to do. However, the other issue they are talking about is a basic trade. Commissioner Thomas stated she fully understands why Mr. Videen wants to sell his property. She commented that what she has not been convinced of, is what the City is getting in return being better than what they have now. She commended Staff for providing the values of the properties which helps immensely. Commissioner Thomas suggested it looks as though the properties are equal. However, in order to convince her this is what she wants, she has to be convinced that a retail property located across from City Hall is appropriate, and she is not convinced of that. She stated that issue would have to be answered before she would feel comfortable saying they should trade. Commissioner Johnson stated they discussed at length two months ago what they would gain, which would be a lot greater than what they have. They now have a corner lot and a pond in the center for a holding pond. He noted the City would gain a much larger holding pond, water filtration, wetland credits, and a park with a walkway. Commissioner Thomas stated she is very close, however, everything they would gain from that property would have to be matched by what they would lose by losing this property and putting retail on it. She stated this property does add to the beautification of this area and creates a “community feel” which they would lose if they gave it up. Commissioner Thomas stated it would also break up the continuity of this property. She questioned if that is worth what they would gain. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 Planner Ericson stated he does not feel they can go through the merits of the transaction on a point by point basis regarding the positives and negatives in the next five minutes. He noted however that there would be tax consequences that would benefit the City tremendously, not to mention the fact that if this does not go forward they would retain the land but could potentially lose the eight acres that is right now a very pristine natural wetland and upland area. He stated in his personal opinion, the remnant parcel is a great piece of land with the pond in it, but he would much rather save the woods and the wetland and the eight acres. Granted, the wetland cannot go away as they are protected, however, certainly the 3 1/2 acres of developable land could be developed commercially. Planner Ericson stated the Planning Commission can talk about if the City could have purchased the land, but now the proposal is before them and they can either act now or live with the consequences. Commissioner Thomas stated this property has been for sale and on the market for eight years and she wonders exactly how developable it is. She said she does not see any imminent danger of this property going to something they cannot stand anytime in the near future, as it is going to have to go to what would work well on the property. Commissioner Thomas said if it comes down to working with the developer she has been incredibly impressed with the desire of this developer. The question is what the community wants. Planner Ericson agreed these are very weighty issues that have to balance out. Acting Chairperson Stevenson commented they are not only talking about Walgreens, but also a Culver’s Restaurant. Since putting this on television, he stated people have told him they want to have the Culver’s Restaurant since it is a favorite family-restaurant of many. He noted that when the theater developed, it was to have a Chili's Restaurant, which was lost due to the amount of time it took for the development approval. He said this was looking positive with not only a Walgreens, but also a Culver’s Restaurant. Commissioner Johnson stated a restaurant was the number one thing that the people in the community wanted when they discussed it two years ago. Mr. Moses stated the City’s remnant parcel is triangular and hard to fit a square building on the land. Regarding the value to the City, it is being used for a pond. However, with the current scenario, the City will get a bigger pond, a pathway, more sidewalk, and a new, tax-paying retail development. The Walgreens alone will generate between $60,000 and $80,000 per year in new taxes, plus the restaurant. He noted the residents on the east would be assured that nothing will be developed in the woods and wetlands, and the development is farther away. He stated this property and the owners go back 50 years, and for 50 years there have been problems with every proposal Mr. Videen brought forward. Mr. Moses stated he personally has been working on this for ten years and believes this proposal is the right thing for everyone. He stated Commissioner Thomas is off base and it is too late to say no, that all this has all been discussed. Commissioner Thomas stated it is not too late, this is clearly the time to bring up these concerns and issues, as it is a public hearing. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 Mr. Moses apologized to Commissioner Thomas and the rest of the Commission, indicating that of course, she was correct. Commissioner Thomas accepted the apology. She stated she took the history into great consideration before she formulated her questions. She stated she may be new to the Commission but she has asked the questions she needed of staff and of other members to find out the background and history, and has lived in the City for the last 20 years. She stated she is very aware of what has gone on with this property and took that into great consideration. These choices, however, must be made according to the here and now, regardless of Mr. Videen's health situation or intentions. Commissioner Thomas stated this is still an economical issue and very little of the past has anything to do with this when talking about some of the land usage issues. Commissioner Thomas inquired about Culver’s Restaurant being tentative in the development. Mr. Moses said they are not far enough along in the lease negotiations to have a formal agreement, however, Culver’s does want to locate here. Commissioner Thomas said she is in great favor of the restaurant. She stated she has been very pleased with the response from the developer, Mr. Moses, and Mr. Videen but this is simply a matter of choice in terms of what they want located here. Council Liaison Stigney addressed the Commission, indicating that earlier Walgreens had offered to purchase the parcel outright, and at that time, the amount of money versus a possible trade was discussed. He explained the people looking at it felt a trade might be more beneficial to the City than the outright sale since the land is not really developable as it is and would require some combination with the adjoining parcels. Commissioner Kaden noted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people may find the pond beautiful, but he finds the wooded areas beautiful. He would like to see the woods and more open land saved. Unfortunately, there are not many areas the City has a chance to obtain. If the numbers come off this close in a trade, he felt it would be a good deal for the residents to get more open space and wooded areas. He said he is not real excited about big buildings everywhere, however, if it works in the tradeoff he would appreciate the woods being saved and having the buildings farther away. Mr. Moses said the developer will use the same brick as the City Hall complex and make the roof material match the Community Center to make it all fit in well. Commissioner Thomas inquired if anyone has discussed the security issues regarding how Walgreens feels about the strong youth environment due to the movie theater and the Community Center. She noted the possibility of vandalism or shoplifting. Mr. Moses said this has not been discussed, noting Mounds View is one of the nicer areas they would be located in. He noted that inner cities have more youth hanging around than Mounds View and he does not think it is a concern at all. Mr. Moses stated the trash would be enclosed so there will not be an opportunity for anyone to cause litter. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 Commissioner Thomas noted the police station is basically across the street and hopefully the store would not be a target. Mr. Moses noted with the store being so close to the highway and visible it is not a place a teenager would likely hang around. On the issue of the pathway and driveway, Mr. Moses stated an example of a well-used trail in Oakdale (the Gateway Trail) that follows Highway 36 and crosses Hadley, just before I-694. He stated that is a good example of a DNR trail crossing a very busy street. The same resident of St. Stephen Street suggested they make a nature center out of the extra parcel of land that is wetlands. She suggested they could utilize Japanese walkways in the wet area and nature trails. Acting Chairperson Stevenson responded the Mounds View Forester would evaluate that suggestion. Planner Ericson suggested a resolution be prepared for the next Planning Commission meeting if the Commission feels they have enough information to direct staff one way or another. If the Commission wants or needs additional information, staff can bring forward more information. He noted the Highway 10 Steering Committee meeting will be held at the City Hall on July 11th. Acting Chairperson Stevenson questioned if information would be forthcoming from that meeting that would affect this consideration. Commissioner Johnson said the Steering Committee will not affect development of land per se, it has more do to with increasing the safety of the highway as far as pedestrian crossings and trails along the highway. He stated the meeting would directly relate to the Walgreens issue. The Planning Commission agreed to direct staff to draft a resolution in favor of the proposed Planned Unit Development. Commissioner Kaden commented that the developer has been willing to work with the Commission, therefore, they should trust they would have the landscaping plan completed by July 19th. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Special Planning Case SP-079-00 Discussion Regarding the First Draft of Ordinance 664, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1106 of the Mounds View Zoning Code Pertaining to Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Accessory Buildings. ______________________________________________________________________________ Planner Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Ordinance 664, which would affect changes in accessory structures in the City has been distributed to the Planning Commission with the changes that are exactly as they were discussed and agreed upon in principle at the last Commission meeting. Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 Planner Ericson advised there are other minor changes contemplated by this ordinance, most of which are housekeeping and reorganizing language in a more logical fashion. Some sections of the code were put under a different subdivision, where it discusses single-family dwellings, and they have cleaned up some previous errors. He noted the changes are evident in the Commission's copy of the ordinance, deletions are struck out and additions are underlined. Commissioner Kaden inquired if 952 square feet is currently the maximum size of a garage without a CUP. Planner Ericson responded affirmatively, subject to the footprint of the house and the 20 percent rear yard coverage ratio. Commissioner Kaden questioned if this code change would strike the “footprint” requirement. Planner Ericson stated that is correct. Acting Chairperson Stevenson inquired if the Commission had any more input on changes made from the last meeting. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on the first page, item C, beginning at the fourth line. Planner Ericson explained that the language was taken from a different part of the code under 1106.02 subdivision 1C. He explained that it was added in 1998 so as to allow a property owner building a house a little bit of flexibility. If the Code did not include this language, it would almost imply that before a house could be built, the driveway would already have to be there. This language indicates that there are ways to build a house and not be required to put the driveway in at the same time, as cement trucks and other heavy vehicles would be coming in and out. He said this could be amended to state more clearly what they would like it to say. He suggested the Commission could think about revising this section and if they find language that makes more sense, it can be revised up until the second reading. Planner Ericson also advised that there are a couple other changes in between substantive and housekeeping to the ordinance. He read from Page 3, item I, stating the change would make it clear that the accessory building shall have weather resistant treated or finished exterior. He explained the existing code was silent on material and they have had problems with some very shoddy looking sheds and structures. Commissioner Miller asked about the lettering on Page 2, which was not corrected when items b and c were deleted. Planner Ericson noted the lettering would be corrected and advised of the addition of item j, which will be corrected to be item h. Commissioner Kaden questioned what is meant by “frequently used vehicle.” He expressed concern that if there are any complaints, the meaning of this could change depending on the inspector at the time. Planner Ericson explained that when this was looked at, they attempted to come up with language that shows the intent but leaves room for some interpretation. He noted they do not want to require every accessory building to have an improved driveway. Commissioner Miller inquired if the building is considered a garage if a car is put in it. Acting Chairperson Stevenson said it is for a vehicle that is going to be frequently used. He explained Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 when they originally discussed this they did not want someone storing an antique vehicle, an ATV, or something not often used to have to have to have a driveway. Commissioner Johnson said he thinks they agreed that if they end up plowing the driveway and making ruts they would probably do something to improve it. Planner Ericson said he thinks the property owner is going to dictate what will happen. He stated the City has to leave some common sense option and allow the resident to do what makes sense and appropriate. Planner Ericson stated staff was not quite sure how else to address this other than by stating specific requirements for a certain size. If after a year they have ruts, he think that would constitute “frequent use.” Commissioner Johnson said if they are going to plow the driveway they will probably park in front of it, which is not allowed without an improved surface. That is where enforcement by the City Inspector comes in for people that do not understand it is an eyesore and needs to be taken care of. Commissioner Miller requested clarification on page 4, item c, beginning at “Any sign existing prior to December 29, 1972, shall not be enlarged …” Planner Ericson responded he could strike that beginning language as they would not know when the sign was originally put up. Commissioner Miller inquired if a sign were only six square inches, could it not be enlarged to one square foot. Planner Ericson explained yes, but he does not think that section is appropriate anymore, as this was drafted in 1983. Commissioner Miller suggested when they amend the sign ordinance they may want to consider if one square foot is appropriate. Upon inquiry, Planner Ericson stated they need item c to be included, as it addresses home occupations, and they need to have the allowances for signage for home occupations. They could strike language from “any sign existing” and say a home occupation can simply have one square foot of signage. Commissioner Miller inquired if playhouses are considered an accessory building. Planner Ericson responded they are listed as an accessory use but not an accessory building. Council Member Stigney asked regarding the home occupation signage if it is supposed to be located on either the principal structure or the garage. He noted many times daycare center signs are out on the street or mailbox. Planner Ericson said that is how the code reads. The home occupation ordinance was put in place in 1983 and has been in place for 17 years. Commissioner Hegland clarified they are requiring a Conditional Use Permit to create an accessory building more than 952 square feet, however, there is not a Conditional Use Permit to go up to 1,400 square feet, if you have a 952 square foot garage you can put another building up. Planner Ericson stated the accessory buildings are allowed to a maximum combined square footage of 1,400 square feet. He said staff would draft a resolution for the Commission's action Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 at the next Commission meeting on July 19th. He inquired if the Commission feels they should strike out language from the home occupancy section. The Planning Commission consensus was to direct staff to leave that section in, stating they can change it when they change the sign code. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke stated the City Council meeting on June 26th had a light agenda, with nothing of much impact related to planning issues. There were some issues with some business licenses and a renewal of an insurance policy. B. Mermaid Expansion Update Community Development Jopke stated the project is moving ahead, they have received an application from the Mermaid for a concept, and will forward it to the Planning Commission at the next Commission meeting. 9. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Commissioner Johnson stated a Highway 10 Steering Committee meeting is scheduled on July 11th at 7:00 p.m. It is open to the public and they will be taking comments about the Highway 10 corridor. No further reports were considered. 10. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chairperson Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Carol Hamer TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\july 5, 2000 minutwes.DOC