Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-15-2006 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA February 15, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. January 18, 2005 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes.) 5. Planning Cases A. DE2006-001 Plan Review for an expansion of C.G. Hill & Sons building Applicant: Tim Hill of C.G. Hill & Sons Address: 5150 Quincy Street, Mounds View B. PA2005-001 Reconsideration of the Belting PUD Amendment Relative to Parking Applicant: Dr. Greg Belting Address: 5360 Edgewood Drive 6. Other Planning Activity The City Council invites the Planning Commission to attend a joint workshop of the Council and Commission on Monday, March 20, 2006, at 7:00 pm. 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. March 1, 2006 – location to be determined B. March 15, 2006 at New Brighton City Hall 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. February 1, 2006 2. Staff Reports a. February 13, 2006 City Council Meeting b. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion *NOTE LOCATION* NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL 803 Old Highway 8 NW PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting February 1, 2006 Spring Lake Park City Hall 1302 – 81st Avenue NE, Spring Lake Park, MN 55432 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. February 1, 2006. He thanked Spring Lake Park for allowing them to use their City Hall while the Mounds View City Hall is under construction. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: None Also Present: Community Development Director Jim Ericson Planning Associate Heidi Heller Economic Development Coordinator Aaron Backman ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case MI2006-001. Consideration of a Major Subdivision 3049 Woodale Drive, Dan Saplis, Inc. 2 Proposed Modification to the Project plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 5 3 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes December 21, 2005. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Scotch. To approve the Minutes of the December 21, 2005 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Mounds View Planning Commission February 1, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case MI2006-001. Consideration of a Major Subdivision Request for 3049 Woodale Drive Planning Associate Heller explained that Dan Saplis has submitted an application for a major subdivision of 3049 Woodale Drive. These parcels abut the western boundary of the city limits, and are directly south of the Hidden Hollow development. Planning Associate Heller advised that the site is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the existing zoning of the property. She stated that all of the lots shown on the preliminary plat satisfy the minimum lot size requirements. She noted that the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation, and consistent with the residential goals and policies as articulated in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Associate Heller stated that the project is located in the Spring Creek 4 sub-watershed, and that the homes will be constructed approximately at the 893 elevation, which is well above the 878.9 elevation in this sub-watershed. She indicated that Lot 1 would be graded so that runoff flows northeast towards the wetland area. She stated the other lots are shown to be graded in such a way as to allow swaled storm water with runoff collecting in the newly created pond along the eastern boundary of the site. She indicated that because the street will have curb and gutter, there are storm sewer catch basins that would accept all runoff from streets and driveways, and whatever storm water that does not infiltrate into the ground, piping the runoff to the pond on the site. Planning Associate Heller advised that the right of way would be sixty feet side and the street width is currently planned to be approximately 24 feet from curb to curb with the cul-de-sac being 90 feet in diameter from curb to curb. She indicated that Staff is recommending a wider street to allow for street parking. Planning Associate Heller explained that since this project will create six new lots, park dedication fees would be required. Staff is recommending the fee amount be 10 percent of the land value. The value is determined by the Ramsey County 2006 appraised land value. She stated that the utility plan shows the storm sewer piping that would be constructed on the site. She indicated that one new fire hydrant is shown on the plan consistent with the Fire Department spacing recommendations. She stated that the utilities and the street would be installed as a public project paid by special assessment levied against each of the six parcels or paid in full by the developer. Mounds View Planning Commission February 1, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heller advised that the amount of daily vehicle trips on the proposed road would be minimal since only six homes are proposed. She stated that access to the site is from Woodale Drive and Silver Lake Road, or County Road H, then north on Pleasant View Drive. She indicated that on average, single-family homes generate about 10 vehicle trips per day, thus one could expect an additional 60 movements along Pleasant View Drive or Woodale as a result of this subdivision. Planning Associate Heller stated that the site has some tree cover mostly along the western boundary, much of which would be removed in conjunction with construction of the new cul-de- sac. She indicated that Staff recommends that upon each lot’s completion the yard area shall be sodded and a minimum of two trees planted in each front yard. Planning Associate Heller commented that even though the National Wetlands Inventory Map and the City’s official Wetland Zoning Map do not identify a wetland within the property boundary, the Rice Creek Watershed District has determined that there is one wetland on the site located at the northern end of the property, on proposed Lot 1. She indicated that in order to build on Lot 1 and have the proper 30 foot front setback and sufficient wetland buffer, it may become necessary to alter a portion of the wetland. She stated the impacted wetland area might be small enough that it falls below the Rice Creek Watershed District guidelines and some of it could be filled without mitigation. She explained that the wetland extends north of the development area onto the back of a few of the Hidden Hollow lots. She stated that the Rice Creek Watershed District is the authority having jurisdiction over wetlands in Mounds View and the applicant will need to submit an application to them for general grading, storm water management and the potential alteration of the wetland. Planning Associate Heller indicated that a total of five soil test borings were put down on the site on December 11, 2003. She stated that recommendations include removing old fill and topsoil and any very fine alluvium if encountered within 3’ of basement or footing grade, and replacing with engineered fill to attain final grades. Planning Associate Heller advised that while a public hearing is not required for the planning commission’s action, staff did send notices to property owners within 350 feet of the project area. She indicated that two residents have contacted staff; one by email and one phone call. She commented that Brian Amundsen lives directly to the south of the project area, and the Hansen’s live two houses to the east of the project. She indicated that a copy of Mr. Amundsen’s email and the comments from the Hansen’s are included in this report. Planning Associate Heller recommended the Planning Commission review the plans and discuss the proposed preliminary plat. Additional public input could be asked for at this time since notices were sent out. She advised that staff review and the engineer’s review revealed no deficiencies and thus Resolution 825-06 recommending approval of the preliminary plat has been drafted for your action if the Commission so desires. Mounds View Planning Commission February 1, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Lamoine Olson, 3033 Woodale Drive, stated she is the adjoining property. She indicated she has lived at the property since 1963, and it has been a wetland. She stated the whole property was a swamp when she was growing up. She indicated that a few years ago when the lots were sold, Mounds View brought in huge truckloads of hazardous material to the site. She stated she had to call the Hazardous Waste Council before it stopped. She indicated she is very worried about the property values around this parcel. She stated the owner has brought the dirt up to a level that is higher than the adjoining lots, and she does not think the runoff should go onto her and her neighbors’ lots. She asked what the developer was planning to do about water shed. She commented that the drainage ditch is always plugged. She stated she also wonders why the road is shown on the outside of the property rather than between her property and this development. Ms. Olson indicated that 23 years ago her parents asked Mounds View about putting a road in and Mounds View said no. She stated she is really concerned about the property values. Commissioner Zwirn asked for clarification from Ms. Olson on her comments that this parcel was a swamp. Ms. Olson stated that it was all swamp, and now it is much higher than her lot. She indicated that her dad used to put gardens in on her property, but now it is all wet. Commissioner Zwirn asked if Ms. Olson experiences any dampness in the structures. Ms. Olson indicated she does not, advising that the homes are close to the front of the property, but the area in back is spongy. Planning Associate Heller indicated that the City Engineer is still looking at the drainage plans. She stated that if there is a ditch in back, the City would maintain it. She added that throughout the project the city would also monitor the grading and make sure it is done properly. Ms. Olson indicated that she does not like it, and she knows that Marlene Hansen does not like it either. Commissioner Zwirn asked if anything was done after complaints were made about the materials. Ms. Olson stated that the trucks stopped the next day, but nothing was ever extracted. She indicated that if you dig down just a little you will find cement chunks, broken bottles, and other debris. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the road was placed between Ms. Olson’s property and this development if she believes it would have a better impact on drainage. Ms. Olson stated that it might, if it went through a drainage system. Commissioner Hegland asked what information Ms. Olson was using in her assumption that the property value would be lower. Ms. Olson stated that if the back of her land is not buildable, and is mushy, she thinks it will be worth less. She indicated that with the level of the property next door and the added drainage she is afraid it will be worth less. Chair Stevenson stated that typically if you put six $400,000 homes next to you, your property value would go up. Mounds View Planning Commission February 1, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Olson stated that the Planning Commission has to look at quality of life in the area also, stating she has been there for a long time. Commissioner Hegland asked if it was a member of Ms. Olson’s family that sold the property, and she replied that it was. Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, noted she is also a manager on the Rice Creek Watershed District. She stated that she had a phone call from a neighbor here, and brought an inspector out to the property. She indicated that she also saw the fill mentioned; adding that when the trucks were bringing fill in she got phone calls as well. She stated that the parcel is built quite high. She noted that the ditch could be cleaned out with a petition to Rice Creek Watershed District. She indicated that as staff mentioned the applicant will need to come to the Rice Creek Watershed District for review, so when the Planning Commission makes a motion they may want to make it contingent on Rice Creek Watershed District approval. Ms. Haake stated that the road being proposed would block off some of the property to the east. She indicated that if the road were put in where Ms. Olson suggested there would be the opportunity to reach those properties to the east and put houses on them. Chair Stevenson asked if there was any indication that the debris is hazardous. He noted that asphalt is not hazardous. Ms. Olson indicated she does not have that definition, but the type of debris mentioned is what is on the property. She stated that as Planning Associate Heller mentioned, some of it would have to be taken out for the house pad to be built, because the soil is not stable as it is. Chair Stevenson indicated that he has a concern about having hazardous waste mentioned in the record if it has not been determined to be hazardous waste. Director Ericson stated that he is not aware of any hazardous waste or anything declared hazardous waste. He indicated that they know there is debris there, and acknowledged that for a time the City was dumping their street sweepings on the site. He stated there would need to be soil removal and soil borings to determine that the appropriate soils are there to build. Community Development Director Ericson stated that when they first looked at this staff also thought it would make sense to have the street where Ms. Olson is indicating, however because the right of way and utilities are already in the proposed location, to abandon that location would be a significant cost. He stated that while it may not be an ideal location for a street, it is acceptable where it is proposed. He added that any drainage onto any other property could probably be corrected with this project. He indicated that the Rice Creek Watershed District would be looking at the pond to make sure it functions properly and is sized correctly. He stated that if there is drainage onto any other property, they might be able to tie it in with this project. He added that the city engineer would also be looking to see if there is a drainage ditch that is not functioning properly, and make sure that is corrected. Mounds View Planning Commission February 1, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Gary Mann, 3009 Woodale Drive, stated that when the city approved the development of Hidden Hollow behind them they had a notion of the value of the homes. He asked if that could be addressed. He indicated that relative to the road, he wondered if it is possible to bring utilities in to the back of the homes. He stated that he knows that easements can be abandoned. He indicated that there is an anomaly here with ditches that run parallel to each other, not very far apart. He indicated that it would be nice if there could be only one. Tom DeSchane, builder, indicated that the homes will be roughly 2500 to 2800 square foot rambler and two-story homes. He stated they would be the same concept as Hidden Hollow, with stone and brick, and all maintenance-free siding. He indicated that all of the yards would be landscaped, with oversized garages so everything can be inside. He stated he believes he will build his own home in this development, so he takes it very seriously. He indicated that he will work with the homeowners in the area to make it right. He commented that the homes would probably be in the high $400,000 to low $500,000 range. Michael Rody, 7225 Hidden Hollow Court, indicated that when Jim Melcher built his house they wrestled with the landscaping, and agreed that there were currently two drainage ditches. He stated that the reason he was given was that the Rice Creek Watershed District told them they could not use existing drainage on a new lot. He requested that the city look at his drainage area also and see if something could be done. Community Development Director Ericson stated that he would have the engineer look at both developments, agreeing that it does not make sense to have parallel drainage, and they will try to tie them together. Chair Stevenson read the letter from Brian Amundsen, supporting the project, and making the suggestion of connecting the proposed cul-de-sac with a 6.5 foot wide walkway to the northern utility dirt road which is west of Hidden Hollow and on city owned property. He also suggested correcting the existing dead-end of Woodale with a curved ending onto the Pleasant View extension, making the road easier to plow and giving it more definition than the awkward ending it has now. He noted that Mr. Amundsen also sent some concepts for the adjoining properties to tie them in with this development. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the applicant also provided some potential subdivision concepts for the adjacent properties when he submitted his application. He stated they are not being proposed at this time, but there are some options. He indicated that with regard to the curve of Pleasant View as it hits the corner, he has passed that recommendation onto the Public Works Director who thought it was a good idea, but they are not talking about a street design now. He stated that would come at a later time. Chair Stevenson asked if there would be any properties landlocked with the current design of the street. Community Development Director Ericson stated that is always a difficulty when you have a subdivision among larger lots; that as part of a subdivision proposal someone might get cut-off. He indicated that if the road was moved as Ms. Olson proposed it would create other Mounds View Planning Commission February 1, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ options for access, but they did have other sketches on how development could occur with the current street proposal. Ms. Olson commented that the neighbors to the east were told that if they sold the property he would take the house and put a road through there. She stated the applicant also told her that he put the road on the west side so he would not have to use so much of his land. She added that she did not want hazardous stricken from the record, since there is oil in asphalt. Dan Saplis, applicant, indicated that Community Development Director Ericson had referred to some sketches he put together. He stated one concern Staff expressed was future development of the adjacent property, and the sketches were to address that concern. He indicated that the reason he proposed the road on the back of the property is so he could use the right-of-way easement and not move utilities that are already there. He added that if he had the road another way he could barely get lookout lots, and no walkouts. He stated he has received the application for permit from Rice Creek Watershed District, which is over an inch thick. He indicated he hired an engineering firm to prepare the information needed so Rice Creek Watershed District can consider his application. Chair Stevenson stated he appreciates the sketches, as he did not want to lock someone in so they could not develop. Commissioner Miller asked if they have enough information to pass a resolution on the preliminary plat, and what they will require to go on to the next step. Chair Stevenson stated his first thought is that they have enough information as long as they take it slow on what the development will be, but he sees it as pretty weak on addressing the neighbors concerns. Planning Associate Heller indicated that she believes they have enough to move forward. She indicated that there are a number of concerns that need to be addressed, but this is only the preliminary plat. She stated that if the Planning Commission feels uncomfortable moving it forward, they could wait. Commissioner Hegland stated that the Rice Creek Watershed District and the engineers would need to do their jobs and address the water issues from the property. Mr. DeSchane presented a copy of the soil boring done on the property. He indicated that the first was done on Lot #5, which said they would have to go down about five feet to get to model soil. He stated that Lot #4, on the cul-de-sac, would require digging out seven and a half feet. He explained that the soil had some moisture, but is not impervious to building a home. Mr. DeSchane stated that boring #2 indicated they would need to dig eight feet. He indicated that they were told that what was dumped in there was nothing more than street sweepings. Ms. Olson stated that the last three years they were dumping cement blocks. Mounds View Planning Commission February 1, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. DeSchane indicated that the sand taken from the pond would be used around the rest of the property. He stated he is not an engineer, but his understanding is that drainage from the site will go into the pond, and any drainage from the adjacent properties will also go into this pond. Mr. Mann advised that ten years ago this was a big, vacant area. He indicated that five years ago the owner turned it into a huge eye sore. He stated the neighbors want this cleaned up, and they want something done. He indicated that eight feet down is probably not an unreasonable depth to dig. He asked if the pond takes into consideration not only the run-off from this development, but also from the adjoining properties. Mr. DeShane indicated that he is not an engineer, but from reading the elevations, the lowest point of the pond is 890 feet. Mr. Mann indicated that it seems to him the sponginess of the backyards should go back to where it came from. He stated that the ditch was never maintained correctly, and the development has fixed that problem. Chair Stevenson indicated that the engineers would be looking at the drainage because they do not allow subdivisions to drain onto neighboring properties. He stated there would be a lot of details yet to come. That the engineers will be looking at the drainage because they do not allow subdivisions to drain onto neighboring properties. Commissioner Hegland asked what the current elevation is of the debris. Mr. DeShane indicated that the pond that will be built is about eighty feet wide, so the first eighty feet will be down to almost the same level as Ms. Olson’s property. He stated that what comes off the road is going to go into the storm retention pond. He indicated that from what has been explained to him, this is designed to take care of whatever the needs are of the property. Community Development Director Ericson commented that the neighbor’s observations on the City’s maintenance of culverts and ditches are correct. He stated that when the current Public Works Director took over he found there were many of those ditches built in the 1960’s and 1970’s that the City lost track of and were not maintaining. He indicated staff has now logged them, and has a very aggressive maintenance schedule. He stated they have made great strides to how they maintain these and do not intend to repeat the mistakes of the past. Commissioner Scotch asked what the size is of the area where the dumping occurred. Community Development Director Ericson stated it is about the length of the cul-de-sac. He also mentioned there was a dumping agreement with Ms. Olson’s father while he still owned the property. He stated nothing has been dumped over the last two or three years, and if it was, it was not by the City. Mr. DeSchane reiterated that they were told it was street sweepings. Commissioner Scotch indicated that there might be some help available from the City to utilize the site to the fullest extent. Ms. Olson stated that her father did have an agreement for the City to bring in clean fill, and when they started bringing in more and more street sweepings, he stopped it. She indicated that Mounds View Planning Commission February 1, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ it was not until he sold it when the awful dumpings were brought in. She stated that if the City has records about a dumping agreement with her father she would like to see them. Commissioner Miller indicated that she has heard a couple of things concerning item 1 in the resolution on widening Pleasant View Drive, but it does not specify to what width. She stated she also heard something about the cul-de-sac being wider. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that item 1 refers to the paved area of the street. He stated that the right-of- way given is adequate; they are just recommending that the paved surface be wider to allow parking. Commissioner Miller asked how July 5th was determined as the date for Final Plat approval. Planning Associate Heller indicated that the applicant has six months to get to Final Plan from the date of the application. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Miller. To approve Resolution 825-06 Recommending Approval of the Preliminary Plat; Planning Case No. MI2006-001. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Community Development Director Ericson noted that when it goes to the City Council for review staff would send another notice so everyone is aware of when that will occur. He encouraged the applicant to work with the adjoining neighbors on the drainage concerns. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Review Proposed Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District No. 5 Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that Medtronic has decided to move forward with Phase 2 of its approved development to be constructed concurrently with Phase 1. He stated that the project plan is being modified to facilitate development of Phases I and II of a business campus, which includes approximately 1.2 million square feet of office space in the City of Mounds View. Community Development Director Ericson stated that due to various market conditions, Medtronic, Inc. has decided to proceed with Phase II of the anticipated project at this time. He indicated that Phase II consists of the construction of an additional 380,000 square feet of office space. He stated that the total project, therefore, would consist of 1.2 million square feet of office space. He indicated that in addition, the surface parking plan is being replaced with a 4,200 vehicle parking ramp. He stated that the Phase II complex would be designed for approximately 1,400 employees bringing the potential employees in the Mounds View campus to 4,700. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Mounds View established Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 last year to provide financial assistance to Medtronic Mounds View Planning Commission February 1, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ consistent with special legislation adopted by the 2005 Minnesota Legislature. He stated that the development agreement entered into by and between the Economic Development Authority and Medtronic provided $14.8 million dollars of assistance to Medtronic to construct the first phase of a three phase development which would consist of 1.5 million square feet of office space at full build out. He indicated that the amended agreement would provide for a maximum $22.9 million dollars of assistance. Community Development Director Ericson advised that Minnesota Statutes require that a city’s planning agency review all modifications to existing TIF Project Plans to determine consistency with the municipality’s Comprehensive Plan. He stated this requirement is similar to the requirement whereby the planning agency reports on the consistency of new TIF Districts with the Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that in terms of what the Commission is reviewing, it must make a determination as to whether the modification is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that in other words, it’s the development for which the modification is predicated consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan was amended last year by changing the Future Land Use designation of the Medtronic site to “Office”. He stated this amendment was approved at the same time that a rezoning was approved for the Medtronic CRM development which authorized 1.5 million square feet of office space and other accessory, ancillary uses. Community Development Director Ericson stated that at the direction of the EDA, Ehler’s and Associates prepared the financial analysis for the project modification, which is attached to the report for the Commission to review. He indicated this document is essentially the same as what the Commission reviewed last year as approved by the EDA on August 22, 2005. He stated that the summary of the changes was to the square footage, and where the Plan said $14.8 million in TIF, it now says $22.9 million. Community Development Director Ericson noted that $8.1 million in TIF is being added for Phase II, however there may be some adjustments to that figure. He indicated that Medtronic would cover the costs to bring Well #4 back on-line, and relocate some of the billboards. He stated that should the four billboards not be able to be relocated within the city, Medtronic would be on the hook to buy out those leases. He noted that Mounds View does not approve the location of the billboards; that approval is up to Mn/Dot. Community Development Director Ericson stated that the language changes are bolded, and followed by ‘as modified 2-13-2006’. He reviewed the changes through the document. He noted that the office building has been approved by the city, and the modification is to support Phase II, which has also been approved. He indicated that the work being undertaken on County Road J also would support this project. Community Development Director Ericson noted that Aaron Backman is here to answer questions, as is Shelley Ehler’s from Ehler’s and Associates. He stated that staff is requesting that the resolution submitted be approved. Mounds View Planning Commission February 1, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, stated that she just wanted to point out a few things. She indicated that Medtronic already has $14.8 million in TIF, and this would add $8.1 million more. She stated that she knows the Planning Commission has been told that they are not supposed to consider the money aspect, but there is State statute that says they should consider it. She indicated that Mounds View will be number one in TIF in Ramsey County if this goes through, and will be at about 30%. She stated that other communities have had their entire City Council overturned over much less than that percentage. Community Development Director Ericson stated that it is correct that some of the reimbursement Medtronic would be providing to the city, specifically the dollars for the well and the street reconstruction, are proposed to be paid by TIF. He stated that if the City Council said they did not want to increase those TIF dollars, those costs would have to be paid upfront. Mr. Hockey stated that if Medtronic were going from an 800,000 square foot building to a 1.2 million square foot building, it would increase the assessed valuation. She indicated that if that were not in TIF, the city would be accumulating so much more money that they could pay it off in fifteen years or less. She stated there is also the “but for” test. She indicated that she did not approve of the way that was done last time, and asked if they have provided information on satisfying that test now. Community Development Director Ericson stated they do have information on but for, however he would argue that, but for TIF financing, this project would not go forward. He indicated it is not that Medtronic could not do it without TIF, but because there are hundreds of other communities and countries that would provide it to them. Ms. Hockey asked what the justification was for, but for on Phase II. She stated that Medtronic is not going to go away now. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the building is not built yet. He stated that he is not suggesting Medtronic would walk away, but they could; they are under no obligation. He indicated they have other properties they could build on. He stated that until he sees a building constructed, he is slightly nervous. Ms. Haake stated that she had thought that Medtronic would only need $2 to $3 million more in TIF, and now it is up to $8.1 million. She indicated that the City Council can do what they want, but she would suggest that the Planning Commission recommend that the city give Medtronic only $2 to $3 million in TIF. She stated she is not against Medtronic, but she wanted a fair deal for Mounds View, and she feels they are not getting one. She indicated they are only getting $43,000 in taxes, yet they have to hire an additional building inspector and the rest of the money will be coming out of her taxes. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that he believes he mentioned the $2 to $2.5 million figure originally in October or November, however that was just a guess. He stated that the only addition in Phase II is the parking ramp, and not knowing how much that would cost, he may have estimated, but it was never meant to be a firm number. Mounds View Planning Commission February 1, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson stated that as to hiring another inspector, there would be one during the peak period of construction that would be supported by the permit fees. He indicated that the city has to document to the State that the money collected from fees is being used to administer the permits, so tax dollars will not be used to pay for an inspector. Ms. Ehlers reviewed how the taxes would work, and explained how the valuation would actually make the tax rate go down unless the City raised the levy amount. Commissioner Scotch indicated that her understanding was that the city made $1 for the school district. Mr. Ehlers stated that the market value referendum for the schools is not included in TIF. She indicated that because the value of the land is higher, the tax on a $150,000 home could go down by $1. Commissioner Scotch indicated that the way she understands it is that the city is at 30% capacity on TIF, and there are not more monies to be had. She added that this is on a 25-year period of time. She stated that most communities are at 8 to 10% for eight years. Community Development Director Ericson stated that as to whether the city is maxed out, there is no magic number. He indicated he had asked the State auditor if there was a threshold that was recommended and they said no; every community is different. He stated that as for repayment, the city has other districts that are 25 year districts also. He indicated that the city may de-certify one district to help balance this. He stated they are a small community without a lot of commercial tax base, and the areas set up as TIF Districts have been successful. He agreed that with this proposal the city’s TIF financing will get higher, but maybe only for a year or two. He added that whether the City gives Medtronic any more TIF money, this will still all be in the TIF District. He stated the only difference is it would pay off sooner. Ms. Haake indicated that a policy on a TIF cap is something that can be set, but Mounds View has not set one. She stated that if TIF Districts come off, we need to watch the City Council so more are not put on. Ms. Haake stated that when the city did their Comprehensive Plan amendment they took a year and held numerous meetings. She indicated that until Medtronic knocked on their door the Comprehensive Plan said this land was recreational; now it says it is office. She stated that if this ever went to a judge she thinks it could be argued on whether that is the right thing. She indicated that the Planning Commission could say it is a done deal, but if they tell the City Council to hold down TIF it would help. Commissioner Scotch stated she does have a concern that the City did not look at all the things that come after a large development. She asked if the city could ever reach a point where they cannot pay for something they need. She added that she does not think the city got what they should have for the land. Community Development Director Ericson stated that the city is looking at what they will need in the negotiations for Phase II, such as possibly bringing Well #4 back up. He indicated that the Mounds View Planning Commission February 1, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ city does need to look to the future in terms of what they need for services, and who the users will be. He stated that Medtronic is not creating the need for another well, but the city needs to consider what happens if they have to shut one down. He commented that the city had been going to pay to bring utilities under Highway 10, but now Medtronic is going to pay. He stated that he feels if there are other things that the city needs, they will be talking to Medtronic. Commissioner Miller stated that she thinks they are getting into a lot of questions that have already been addressed, and are not what is on the resolution. Community Development Director Ericson stated that one comment he would make on the Comprehensive Plan is that there is a lot of belief that it is set in stone, but it is not. He indicated that if it were, the Metropolitan Council would not require that the city amend it every ten years. He stated that after a period of years the City has to look at what is right for the city now, not twenty years ago. He indicated that when the City did the Comprehensive Plan the reason the parcel was designated as recreational was because it was a golf course. He stated that making this change was not decided at one meeting, adding that a city’s Comprehensive Plan has to be fluid. Chair Stevenson indicated that the resolution before them is a resolution finding that a modification to the project plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. He noted that Phase I has already been approved, and Phase II was looked at as a future plan. He indicated that this would benefit the city by happening in conjunction with Phase I. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 824-06, a Resolution of the City of Mounds View Planning Commission finding that a modification to the project plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and a modification to the tax increment financing plan for tax increment financing District Number 5 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that he is pleased the Planning Commission is considering this carefully. He indicated he thinks it is exciting that Medtronic is willing to commit to Phase II five to six years earlier than expected. He stated he thinks it will be beneficial to Mounds View and will have benefits further than just Mounds View as well. Ayes – 5 Nays – 2 (Zwirn, Scotch) Motion carried. Community Development Director Ericson stated that if the Commission wants to send a message to the City Council about what they may or may not find appropriate, they have that right, and staff will forward those comments to the Council. Commissioner Hull indicated that it probably would not matter. He stated he thinks the battle is pretty much lost, but if Wal-Mart wants to come into Mounds View Center and wants TIF, maybe the city can learn from this and say no. Mounds View Planning Commission February 1, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 14 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch noted that they had a developer here tonight that wanted to better the city, and asked why he could not get TIF. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the development was not in a TIF district, but there is money available that the city has used before, and the applicant can apply for help. He stated it is usually used in instances of a blighted property or something similar. Commissioner Zwirn stated that he read the Medtronic deal and thinks it was a dirty deal. He indicated that he does not think that TIF should be given for Phase II at all. Commissioner Scotch stated that she recognizes the hard work that the Economic Development Coordinator has done, but commented that a lot of people think Mounds View is a laughing stock for this deal. She indicated it was a hard decision for the City Council to have to make, and she would not have wanted to make it. _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: February 15, 2006 at New Brighton City Hall. Chair Stevenson noted he would not be at this meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Karen Bucklen TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: February 15, 2006 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Plan Review for a C.G. Hill building expansion; Planning Case DE2006-001 Introduction: Applicant and property owner Tim Hill is requesting a plan review for a proposed 16,150 square foot building addition to be added onto the east side of his existing building. This expansion would increase the building size by approximately 50 percent. C.G Hill has been located in Mounds View since 1994 and is a growing company. This expansion would help the company continue to be competitive in their market along with being able to add a new assembly line to their facility. Discussion: The C.G. Hill property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) with allowed uses that include commercial and industrial. C.G. Hill is a custom equipment manufacturing company that currently has 48 employees. Their building was constructed in 1994 and at that time, future expansion plans for the building were included on the drawings. The expansion that is being proposed at this time is exactly what was on the original building plans. Parking. There are presently 79 parking stalls on the site with space available to add 11 more for a total of 90 possible spaces. The current amount of spaces has been more than enough to serve the employees and a few daily visitors. In fact, the back one to two rows in the parking lot are always empty. The PUD process provides some flexibility in determining what the actual parking space count should be. According to the City’s parking code requirements, a manufacturing facility would be required to provide parking according to the following schedule: At least eight spaces plus one space for each two employees on each shift based on maximum planned employment; or, at a minimum, at least eight spaces plus one space for each five hundred square feet of floor space. At maximum expansion, this would result in the need to provide a total of 103 parking stalls when based on total square footage for the building. The building size without the addition requires 71 parking spaces. The added space to the building is needed for large assembly line equipment, not employees. C.G. Hill plans to only hire about four additional employees after the addition is completed. Staff is confident that the site can support the building expansion without increasing the number of parking spaces. Setbacks. None of the setbacks would be changing, only the rear of the building would be moved to within 32 feet of the east property line. This setback is less than what would normally be allowed in an industrial district (40 foot setback for rear), but again, because the Mounds View Business Park is zoned PUD, there is flexibility in where buildings can be. The addition will be the same width as the current building. Staff feels that the building sitting within 32 feet of the rear property line would not pose a problem. The back of the C.G. Hill building would be moving closer to the back of Bethlehem Baptist Church. Summary: Tim Hill is requesting plan approval to construct a 16,150 square foot addition to his current building at 5150 Quincy Street. Such an expansion would bring additional tax base to the community, and the availability of more space would allow Mr. Hill to add additional assembly equipment to his facility and increase the capabilities of his business. Recommendation: Review and consider attached Resolution 826-06 which recommends approval of the plans submitted by Mr. Hill proposing a 16,150 square foot addition to the east side of the existing building. _____________________________________ Heidi Heller Planning Associate Staff Report for C.G. Hill expansion; Planning Case DE2006-001 Page 2 Zoning Map C.G. Hill Site Plan Proposed Addition Current Building Interior Site Plan with Completed Addition (shaded area) Exterior Site plan with Completed Addition Aerial View C.G. Hill Bethlehem Baptist Church – Bldg N Taco Bell KFC Days Inn Jonco Die Company DQCI – Dairy Quality Control Inc. Front of C.G. Hill building Southeast corner of building MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 826-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 16,150 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE C.G. HILL BUILDING; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE DE2006-001 WHEREAS, Tim Hill, owner of C.G. Hill & Sons currently located at 5150 Quincy Street, plans to construct a 16,150 square foot single story addition to his current building; and, WHEREAS, the lot in question is zoned PUD which includes “Industrial” as those uses allowable on the subject parcel; and, WHEREAS, the subject parcel is legally described as Mounds View Business Park East Addition That Part of Lot 1 Block 1 In T.i.75 1985; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View City Code requires all new commercial development to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with all codes, regulations and requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents relative to this request: 1. Staff Report 2. Planning Application 3. Zoning Map 4. Interior and Exterior Site Plans 5. Aerial View 6. Photographic Documentation NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request for a 16,150 square foot addition to the existing C.G. Hill & Sons building and recommends approval subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall install sod and landscape all disturbed areas and replace trees at a 1:1 ratio no later than 60 days beyond issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, weather permitting. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 15th day of February, 2006. _____________________________________ Jean Miller, Vice Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: Feb 15, 2006 Type of Business: CB Administrator Review: ____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consider Possible Amendment to the Walgreens PUD Relating to Parking Requirements Associated with the Belting Office Building Introduction: On October 10, 2005, the City Council approved Resolution 6633 which approved a single story, 8,300 square foot office development for Dr. Greg Belting. Dr. Belting is planning to relocate his chiropractic business from Silverview Plaza to his new building and then market the excess space to other area professionals. Regardless of the end users, the space would need to be utilized primarily as “Office” per the PUD allowances for this site. Discussion: The resolution of approval identified a number of conditions relating to the project which would need to be satisfied before construction could proceed. One such provision—shared parking—has proven difficult to overcome at this point, prompting Dr. Belting to return to the Council for reconsideration: 1. The applicant shall execute a cross access, joint parking and maintenance agreement with the owner of the Walgreens site and provide a copy of said document to the City for its records. The owner of the Walgreens site and Walgreens management are not presently consenting to any shared parking arrangements for the site which leaves Dr. Belting in the position to seek reconsideration from the City as the specific number of stalls provided on his site. A strict interpretation of the Code would require there to be 50 parking stalls on the lot—the adopted site plan only provides 43 stalls, seven stalls less than required. Dr. Belting asked the City Council to consider a Limited Use Agreement whereby the seven stalls could be shown on the Community Center parking lot, however the Council was not willing to lease or otherwise obligate stalls for off-site use. The Council however suggested that the PUD could be reconsidered to address parking requirements in that document where such flexibility is allowed. The parking requirements for an office type use in Mounds View are 8 stalls plus one stall per every 175 square feet of leased office space. After factoring out bathrooms, mechanical areas, entryways, stairwells and other “commons” areas, the number of required stalls at the Belting building decreases to 50. Dr. Belting asserts that the 43 stalls provided for the building would be more than adequate to meet the expected demands. Belting Request Feb 15, 2006 Page 2 The Planning Commission and City Council have granted parking concessions in the past, all of which have worked out according to plan without any negative consequences. There are two examples where parking did become an issue—the Carmike Cinema and the Mezzenga/Farrell building; however neither resulted from a variance in required parking stalls. Two recent examples of reduced parking requirements include Zep Manufacturing on Coral Sea Street and the Minnesota Institute of Public Health building on County Road 10. In both cases, the parking requirement was reduced from 1 space per 175 square feet to 1 space per 250 square feet. Staff has reviewed parking codes from other communities and across the nation (American Planning Association Parking Guidebook) and we have found that Mounds View’s parking requirements tend to require more parking than other communities. In the case of office uses, the average requirement ranges from 4-5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building space. Given these examples and previous City authorizations, staff feels comfortable supporting a parking ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (in other words, one space per 200 square feet.) This would result in 42 parking stalls being required, which the site plan would accommodate. The alternative to considering such an amendment would be to hold firm to the identified parking ratios and require the building to be scaled back to the point where the parking would match with the building square footage. Staff has calculated how much floor area would have to be eliminated to accomplish this, which appears to be no more than 400 square feet, if done in such a way to create additional parking in the process. Recommendation: Dr. Belting requests that the City consider an amendment to the PUD that would establish parking requirements at the rate of one stall per 200 square feet of gross floor area. Staff is not opposed to this amendment and as such has drafted a resolution for the Planning Commission’s consideration. If the Commission does not support the recommendation, a motion to deny the resolution would suffice. A public hearing has been scheduled with the City Council on February 27, 2006. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Zoning Map Aerial View Belting Site Approved Site Plan Proposed Sidewalk to Community CenterWalgreens Belting Building Belting Building Site Plan with Reduced Building Footprint MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 827-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT RELATING TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WALGREENS PUD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE PA2005-001 WHEREAS, Dr. Greg Belting, owner of Silverview Chiropractic currently located at 2552 County Road 10, is the owner of the lot located at 5360 Edgewood Drive (the vacant lot behind Walgreens) upon which he intends to construct an 8,300 square foot single story multi-tenant office building; and, WHEREAS, the lot in question is zoned PUD which was recently amended to include “Office Uses” as those uses allowable on the subject parcel; and, WHEREAS, the subject parcel is legally described as Lot 2, Block 2; Mounds View City Hall Addition; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View City Code relating to Planned Unit Developments allows for some flexibility in the strict application of dimensional and zoning requirements; and, WHEREAS, Dr. Greg Belting is requesting that the number of parking stalls required for this site be amended to reflect a “One space per 200 square feet of Office Space” ratio. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents relative to this request: 1. Zoning Map 2. Walgreens PUD Document 3. Site Plan 4. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request for an amendment of the PUD to reflect the “one space per 200 square feet of office space” ratio and recommends approval of said amendment. Resolution 827-06 Page 2 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 15th day of February, 2006. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL)