HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-2005
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
February 2, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approve Minutes: None
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not
Already Present on the Agenda
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM,
AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES
5. Pubic Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 783-05, Recommending Approval of a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Which Would Change the Land Use Designation of
the Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course from Outdoor Sport/Recreation and Passive
Open Space to Office Park
6. Consider Resolution 782-05, Recommending Acquisition of 2394 County Road 10,
Donut Connection
APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED.
PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT
763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND.
7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: February 16, 2005
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
AGENDA SESSION
1. Review Minutes: January 5, 2005
January 19, 2005
2. Staff Reports
A. Red Oak Estates Development
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
January 5, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m., January 5, 2005.
______________________________________________________________________________
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Scotch, Stevenson, and
Meehlhause
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson
________________________________________________________________________
Index to Minutes Page
Discuss Possible Code Amendment Regarding Building Height in PUD 2
Election of Officers 3
_____________________________________________________________________________
3. Approve Minutes
a. December 1, 2004
MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Zwirn. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for
December 1, 2004 as Presented.
Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
______________________________________________________________________________
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
________________________________________________________________________
5. Discuss Possible Code Amendment Regarding Building Height Restrictions in a
Planned Unit Development
Community Development Director Ericson indicated that this was discussed at a previous
meeting and that there is inconsistency relating to building heights and what is allowed and the
whole intent of the PUD is to provide for some flexibility and deviation from standard Code
requirements.
Director Ericson reviewed the proposed code amendment for Commission consideration. He
then indicated that the City Attorney reviewed this and he found no issue with it and Staff
recommends approval and forwarding to the Council for final approval.
Commissioner Zwirn asked if this is being done to clear up any ambiguity or laying the
groundwork for future development intentions.
Director Ericson indicated it would do both. He then said that when development possibilities
are looked at for the golf course, there has been discussion of a five-story building, and that
would currently not be allowed by Code.
Chair Stevenson asked if the flexibility is restricted because of the airport.
Director Ericson indicated that the FAA and MAC regulations would supersede whatever the
City may approve.
Chair Stevenson asked how tall a building could be.
Director Ericson indicated that the size of the lot would limit the size, as well as the airport
regulations.
Commissioner Hegland asked about the square footage requirements for a building on a site and
whether footprint or square footage governs parking requirements.
Director Ericson explained that the parking requirements are based on square footage, not the
footprint of the building.
The Commission asked whether there would be any issues with fire protection or City services in
approving a taller building.
Director Ericson indicated that he does not see any issues with fire protection and there are very
limited sites where a PUD could be located within the City.
Commissioner Hegland suggested that this would open the door for other sites to redevelop, such
as the Mermaid.
Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
________________________________________________________________________
Director Ericson indicated that parking requirements would need to be met before site expansion.
He then said that the Mermaid site is fully developed and they would need to provide for
additional parking before approval of an expansion.
Commissioner Zwirn asked if there are any protections for the aesthetics and protection from a
large structure for residents in the area.
Director Ericson indicated the protection would be that the City is going to be the one deciding
where to locate the buildings and the PUD gives the City the option of additional landscaping
and buffering requirements to create a better development.
Director Ericson explained that the City approves the PUD and can say no if it is not what the
Commission and Council want to see in the City.
Commissioner Hegland asked if there is any impact to City water and sewer for a five-story
building.
Director Ericson indicated that the study indicates that City services could support a 1.5 million
square foot building.
Director Ericson indicated Staff could strike Subdivision 12 in its entirety to eliminate the
inconsistency but Staff would prefer the language as proposed.
Commissioner Hegland indicated there were no guidelines provided.
Director Ericson indicated that the development would need to satisfy the 10 criteria of purpose
and intent listed in the PUD section of the Code.
Commissioner Zwirn said he understands the intent and direction Staff is trying to go but he
thinks it is too open ended and causes problems for the surrounding areas and reinforced that
regardless of public hearings he can see that if this is followed the City has a tendency to throw
up its arms and say there is nothing that can be done to stop it. He then said that if there are a lot
of people objecting to the project but the City goes forward with it because it meets the criteria
he is concerned about that.
Commissioner Zwirn said he does not like the open-ended language.
Director Ericson agreed that it is open-ended but said that is the purpose of the PUD.
Commissioner Zwirn said that he feels that the direct statement of the underlying district governs
the height is clear. But, the proposed language opens it up for something residents may not want
in an area. He then said sees no protection with the new wording.
Chair Stevenson said he feels the City should rely on the 10 stated reasons for approval, and
whether to grant a higher building in a PUD will depend on those reasons.
Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
________________________________________________________________________
Director Ericson commented that Staff feels this is a way of clarifying the Code.
MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Meehlhause. To Approve Resolution 781-05, a Resolution
Recommending Approval of a Code Amendment to Section XXX, of the Mounds View City
Code.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 1(Zwirn) Motion carried.
Director Ericson indicated that this would be on the Council Agenda for January 24, 2005.
______________________________________________________________________________
6. Election of Officers
Commissioner Miller nominated Gary Stevenson for Chair.
Gary Stevenson was approved unanimously by voice vote for Chair for 2005.
Chair Stevenson nominated Commissioner Miller for Vice Chair.
Commissioner Miller was approved unanimously by voice vote for Vice Chair for 2005.
______________________________________________________________________________
7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: January 19, 2005
______________________________________________________________________________
8. Adjournment to Agenda Session
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 7:36 p.m.
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Joan Lenzmeier
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
January 19, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m., January 19, 2005.
______________________________________________________________________________
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Scotch, Meehlhause, and
Stevenson
Members Absent: None.
Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson
Planning Associate Prososki
________________________________________________________________________
Index to Minutes Page
Discussion of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Mounds
View Golf Course 2
_______________________________________________________________________
3. Approve Minutes
a. December 15, 2004
MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Miller. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for
December 15, 2004 as Presented.
Ayes –6 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
______________________________________________________________________________
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mounds View Planning Commission January 19, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
________________________________________________________________________
5. Discuss Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Which Would Change the Land
Use Designation of the Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course from Outdoor
Sport/Recreation and Passive Open Space to Office Park.
Community Development Director Ericson stated that the City Council authorized a rezoning of
the Bridges site in October of 2003 from Public Facilities (PF) to Industrial (I-1). Minnesota
Statutes, as articulated in the MN Land Planning Act, requires that the zoning of a property be
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, so it becomes necessary to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to reflect the anticipated future land use of the site, which is currently being
proposed as an Office (OFC) designation. While other designations may be consistent, such as
Light Industrial Planned Unit Development (LI-PUD) or simply a Light Industrial (LI)
designation, either of which could accommodate the proposed corporate office complex, it has
been determined that an OFC designation would most closely correlate with a planned corporate
office complex.
Director Ericson stated that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on February
2, 2005 to consider the proposed designation for the site, forwarding the recommendation back to
the City Council for final approval. He stated that the City Council has opted to forward the
amendment directly to the Met Council prior to Council approval, which would provide the City
Council with an opportunity to accept or reject the amendment after sufficient time has passed to
assess the current redevelopment proposal or any subsequent proposal.
Director Ericson stated that RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. has prepared the Met Council amendment
application, which the Planning Commission was given a copy of. Director Ericson also
provided the Planning Commission with the City Council’s resolution authorizing the
amendment application.
Director Ericson stated that once the amendment is approved and after redevelopment takes
place, further text amendments would be necessary to remove references to a city golf course,
adjust acreage totals, and amend other maps or exhibits, a list of which he provided to the
Planning Commission.
Director Ericson stated that no action would be taken on this item tonight other than to discuss it,
and that action on the resolution would be taken at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Chair Stevenson stated that the reason for breaking up the golf course is for an entire
development, and he would hate to see the designation of PUD not being part of the zoning. He
asked why a mixed use PUD designation couldn’t be used. He stated that in the event Medtronic
went away, he wanted to have the right designation for the property.
Director Ericson stated that the problem with the Mounds View PUD designation is that some
component of that mixed use would entail residential, and they didn’t want to send the message
that they were looking for residential in that area, given the surrounding land uses in Blaine and
the proximity of the two major freeways. He stated that light industrial might send the message
Mounds View Planning Commission January 19, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
________________________________________________________________________
of something in the line of a truck terminal, which would be more intensive than an office
complex.
Chair Stevenson mentioned a 400-500 condominium unit, and they would possibly have to
rezone if a big developer wanted to come in. He stated his concern over breaking up the golf
course for smaller projects.
Director Ericson stated that the City would not be selling the holes one by one, and they are in
charge of the property. He stated that the City wouldn’t be breaking up the golf course for a
25,000 square foot office building, for instance.
Commissioner Hegland asked if this designation would in any way impact the tax status of the
property.
Director Ericson stated that it would not; the County will assess the property based on what it is.
He stated if Medtronic were to construct a corporate office complex, it would be assessed at a
commercial office designation. He stated that it’s a tax exempt property at this point and is not
generating any taxes.
Chair Stevenson stated that whoever comes in there would be paying taxes after it’s developed,
and Director Ericson stated that that was correct.
Commissioner Zwirn asked whether Medtronic had asked the City to provide tax incentives.
Director Ericson stated that Medtronic will be seeking financial assistance for the project. He
stated that there would be a base tax value of the property that would reflect what its current
value is. He stated that the value of their development would be captured within a new TIF
district. He stated that the City would still derive the benefit of that base, and that could be $9
million. He stated that the base could be negotiated at whatever the County determines the true
market value of the land is, so the various taxing jurisdictions would capture the initial base land
value of the project with the excess being available for TIF. He stated that depending on what is
negotiated, 90 percent of that could be provided back to the developer, with the City retaining 10
percent for its administration costs. He stated that it would be their intent to get the project fully
funded and then repaid, and then back on the tax rolls as soon as possible.
Director Ericson stated that Mayor Marty indicated that for this to work for the community, it
has to make sense today, not 25 years from now, and that the City of Mounds View cannot
continue to shoulder the type of tax increases that there have been the past several years.
Commissioner Zwirn stated that what he understood Director Ericson was saying was that right
now there is a valuation placed on the land, and there is a tax base that is created as a result of
that valuation, and that anything that Medtronic would do to improve that is negotiable as far as
tax base goes. He asked if they could negotiate something out 10-15 years from now and delay
the taxes on that.
Mounds View Planning Commission January 19, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
________________________________________________________________________
Director Ericson stated that that was not quite correct, that there would be taxes paid. He stated
that how they would finance the development or help address their costs would be to create a TIF
District. He stated that Medtronic would pay all the taxes that would be due were it not in the
District. He stated that part of that would be captured, and the City could provide that back to
the developer, keep part of it, and part of that goes back to the General Fund. He stated that
Medtronic would always be paying taxes.
Commissioner Zwirn asked if Medtronic had made statements during negotiations that they were
asking for assistance, and they had asked for a rebate of 90, 95 percent of that tax base. He
asked if the City of Mounds View would still get that 5 percent increase, but 95 percent of it
would be waived or put back into construction costs.
Director Ericson stated that the TIF advisors and financial advisors are running some numbers
for them so that they know what they are asking for and what impact it has on the development.
He stated that there were a number of scenarios on the table, and while nothing has been
determined, it is likely that there will be tax increment financing assistance. He stated that the
base value and the value of the project will depend in part on how the County assesses both. He
stated that the County has a vested interest in maximizing the potential because they get a portion
of the tax bill, as does the school district.
Chair Stevenson stated that he was starting to agree with the Office designation, but that he was a
little confused on where they were going with this Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding
the light industrial.
Director Ericson stated that the reason why the site was zoned light industrial is that there
weren’t a lot of choices for zoning. He stated that offices are an allowed use within an industrial
setting.
Commissioner Zwirn stated he had heard the words “campus” and “training facility” used. He
asked whether Medtronic was going to be using this property as light industrial and whether
there would be shipping and receiving, or just exactly what was going to be taking place.
Director Ericson stated that it was his understanding that there would be little to no
manufacturing, and that it would be strictly office space with minimal shipping and receiving.
He stated there would be minor research lab areas and development areas.
Chair Stevenson asked if research and development and labs were allowed in an OFC, and
Director Ericson responded that they were.
Commissioner Zwirn asked if the light industrial PUD designation would afford Medtronic more
flexibility for any plans that they may have.
Director Ericson stated that such a designation would not afford the end user any additional
flexibility. He stated that the designation is a guide, and it’s meant to be somewhat broad. He
stated that this property was already rezoned back in 2003, and now they are going to make a
Mounds View Planning Commission January 19, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
________________________________________________________________________
Comprehensive Plan Amendment consistent with that zoning. He stated that given the nature of
the corporate office climate and the magnitude of the development, this would become a PUD,
so the way the Code was drafted, it would have to be rezoned to PUD, which would then allow
for more flexibility in design and site planning. He stated that Zoning is really the tool that
effectuates the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Stevenson asked what direction they were looking for this evening.
Director Ericson stated that they were not looking for any action this evening; but they were
simply looking for feedback.
Commissioner Miller stated that she hoped they were going to do something with 35W and
Highway 10, because right now where Highway 10 comes into 35W, it’s a mess trying to get off
of County Road I, or even coming from County Road I to go north on 35.
Director Ericson stated that that is a big concern for everyone, as it isn’t functioning as best it
can. He stated that the Met Council recently adopted their Transportation Improvement Plan
through 2020, and there didn’t seem to be any improvements slated for the 35W corridor. He
stated that three different groups are looking at this, and that the Governor is now on board
supporting improvements to 35W, County Road J, and the Lake/J interchange. He stated that
MnDOT has expanded their study to up County Road J.
Chair Stevenson stated that they were on board with this designation, whether it stays a golf
course or not.
Director Ericson stated that changing the designation doesn’t force the City’s hand, and they
don’t have to redevelop it. He stated that there are a number of areas in the city where the
existing land use isn’t consistent with the future land use.
_____________________________________________________________________________
6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: February 2, 2005
______________________________________________________________________________
9. Adjournment to Agenda Session
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 7:45 p.m.
(The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session)
Respectfully submitted,
Mounds View Planning Commission January 19, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
________________________________________________________________________
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
Transcribed by:
Sheree Theobald
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Item No: 5
Meeting Date: February 2, 2005
Type of Business: PH & CB
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 783-05, a
Resolution Recommending Approval of a Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map Amendment Associated with the Bridges
of Mounds View Site
Introduction:
As the Planning Commission is fully aware, the City of Mounds View has been actively
exploring redevelopment options associated with the Bridges site located north of Trunk
Highway 10 in the northeast corner of the City. Presently operated as a municipal golf
course, the City Council has been considering other options as a means to enhance and
improve revenues and the tax base. The Future Land Use Map currently identifies the
Bridges site as both Passive Open Space (OSP) and Outdoor Sport Recreation (SRO).
On September 13, 2004, the Economic Development Authority (EDA) of the City of Mounds
View authorized the preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) that would
assess the maximum development potential of the Bridges site assuming an office or light
industrial land use and the impacts of such a development. Other actions have been
authorized by the EDA regarding the possible redevelopment of the site. One additional
action step is needed which has been contemplated in the AUAR report—the City’s
Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended so as to be made consistent with the property
zoning as well as with the underlying assumption of the AUAR—that of an assumed or
desired corporate office campus.
Discussion:
The City Council authorized a rezoning of the Bridges site in October of 2003 from Public
Facilities (PF) to Industrial (I-1). Minnesota Statutes, as articulated in the MN Land Planning
Act, requires that the zoning of a property not be inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, so it becomes necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the anticipated
future land use of the site, which is currently being proposed as an Office (OFC) designation.
While other designations may be consistent, such as Light Industrial Planned Unit
Development (LI-PUD) or simply a Light Industrial (LI) designation, it has been determined
that an OFC designation would most closely correlate with a planned corporate office
complex.
This item was reviewed at the Planning Commission’s meeting on January 19, 2005. The
Commission examined the various land use designations potentially consistent with an
Industrially zoned property and considered the ramifications of a mixed-use, planned unit
development designation. Ultimately, the Commission came to a consensus on the OFC
designation as being the most closely associated with the intended future use of the site.
Comp Plan Amendment Report
Feb 2, 2005
Page 2
The internal process of preparing and approving a comp plan future land use amendment is
fairly straightforward—the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing and consider
the proposed designation for the site, forwarding the recommendation back to the City
Council for final approval. The City Council has opted to forward the amendment directly to
the Met Council PRIOR to Council approval, which would provide the City Council with an
opportunity to accept or reject the amendment after sufficient time has passed to assess the
current redevelopment proposal or any subsequent proposal.
The City’s consultant on this project, RLK-Kuusisto, LTD., has prepared the Met Council
amendment application (originally provided to the Commission for the Jan 19, 2005 meeting)
and will be present at the meeting to discuss the application and answer any questions of the
Commission or attending public. Once the amendment is approved and after
redevelopment takes place, further text amendments would be necessary to remove
references to a city golf course, adjust acreage totals and amend other maps or exhibits.
The following list represents pages of the Comprehensive Plan that will likely need
amendment or clarification once development has occurred:
Comp Plan Pages for future update:
32 - Figure 6 - Future Land Use Map
33 - Figure 7 - Existing and Future Land Use Comparison
37 - Future Lane Use
39 - Land Uses Map Changes
62 - Parks and Open Space
64 - Table 19 Community Facilities (71.4 acres SRO being changed to 71.4 Office)
66 - Figure 10 - Community Facilities Map
68 - Figure 12 - Sanitary Sewer System
82 - Trails
83 - Figure 16 - 1997 MSAS and Projected 2020 Traffic Volumes
107 - CRP (top of page)
114 - Appendix B: Proposed Land Use Designation Changes
It should be reiterated that the only change being considered is to the Future Land use Map,
relative to the golf course site, from SRO (Outdoor Sport and Recreation) and OSP (Passive
Open Space) to OFC (Office).
Recommendation:
Hold the public hearing, review and consider the attached amendment application and
resolution which recommends approval of the comp plan future land use map amendment.
Upon adoption of the resolution, the consultant will submit the amendment application to the
Met Council for their consideration.
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 783-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM OUTDOOR SPORT RECREATION (SRO) AND PASSIVE OPEN
SPACE (OSP) TO OFFICE (OFC) FOR THE BRIDGES REDEVELOPMENT SITE;
SPECIAL PLANNING CASE SP-134-05
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has directed staff to explore potential
redevelopment options relating to the Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course site as
identified in the map attached as Exhibit 1, and;
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has become aware of significant interest
in the Bridges site for a potential corporate office campus redevelopment; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has authorized the preparation of an
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) to assess the maximum development potential
of the Bridges site assuming a corporate office land use; and,
WHEREAS, to resolve an inconsistency between the zoning and future land use of
the site, the Mounds View City Council has authorized the preparation of a Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendment on January 19, 2005 and held a duly noticed public hearing on the
amendment February 2, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby make the following findings of fact relating to the Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map for the Bridges Redevelopment site:
1. The Bridges site is situated north of Trunk Highway 10, west of Interstate 35W
and south of County Road J and 82nd Street NE
2. The Bridges site, as identified in Exhibit 1, is currently designated as Passive
Open Space and Outdoor Sport Recreation.
3. The Bridges Site is currently zoned I-1, Light Industrial, as a result of action
taken by the City in 2003.
4. The Bridges site is bordered by industrially-zoned and utilized lands within and
outside of the city.
Resolution 783-05
Page 2
5. The Bridges site should reflect a future land use designation that is both
consistent with the approved zoning and indicative of the anticipated
redevelopment as a corporate office campus.
6. There exists a relative scarcity (less than 1%) of land in the City designated as
“Office”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based on the above findings of
fact, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby conclude that the Bridges site
should bear the future land use designation of “OFFICE” and recommends approval of
such an amendment effectuating said change.
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 2nd day of February, 2005.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
\\trout\commdev\special planning cases\sp-134-05 (comp plan amendment)\resolution 783-05.doc
Exhibit 1.
Bridges Site – Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
Bridges Redevelopment
Site
Item No: 6
Meeting Date: February 2, 2005
Type of Business: Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review Possible Acquisition of the Donut Connection
Site, 2394 County Road 10
Introduction:
A Realtor representing the property owners of the Donut Connection located at 2394 County
Road 10 recently approached staff regarding the sale of the property to the City. The
Planning Commission is required to review all potential acquisitions and disposals of real
property and assess consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council considered
this matter at their meeting on January 24, 2005 and recommended that the Planning
Commission review the issue and have staff continue with negotiations toward a possible
purchase.
Discussion:
Staff informed the Realtor of the City Council’s interest and that the Planning Commission
would need to review the possible acquisition for consistency with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, as dictated by Minnesota Statutes. The future land use map designation for the Donut
Connection parcel and adjoining gas station land is HC, Highway Convenience. The zoning
for both properties is B-3, Highway Business.
The property area of the Donut Connection site is only 20,000 square feet, the lot carved
from the former Fina Gas station parcel. On its own, the Donut Connection property has
limited value to the City. If combined with the gas station parcel however, a meaningful
redevelopment could be achieved. Please refer to the attached maps and documentation
regarding the site. Acquisition of this property would be consistent with the City Council’s
and community’s desire for coordinated corridor redevelopment. Proceeds for the
acquisition would be derived from pooled tax increment finance dollars. This parcel and the
adjoining gas station parcel are represented on the City’s official list of properties for
potential acquisition.
The Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies are intended to maintain a cohesive land use
pattern that ensures compatibility and a functional relationship between activities and uses.
This statement is consistent with the community’s desire for coordinated and meaningful
development and redevelopment along the County Road 10 corridor. Acquisition of the
Donut Connection site would allow for more control over the potential reuse of the subject
property while encouraging a more coordinated redevelopment that might not otherwise
occur without City involvement. Another equally important goal articulated by the
Comprehensive Plan is the desire to preserve and protect property values. Acquisition of
this property voluntarily offered to the City will provide an opportunity to enhance the tax
base while opening the door to a comprehensive redevelopment of this visible corner within
the County Road 10 corridor.
Donut Connection Report
February 2, 2005
Page 2
Recommendation:
Staff and the City Council are requesting that the Planning Commission review the proposed
acquisition of the Donut Connection property (the terms of which would be negotiated at a
later date subject to City Council approval) to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan. Resolution 782-05 is available for your action, approval of which would indicate to the
City Council that said acquisition would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
Donut Connection
2386 Co. Rd. 10
Gas Station Site
2390 Co. Rd. 10
Donut
Connection
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 782-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE
DONUT CONNECTION PARCEL LOCATED AT 2394 COUNTY ROAD 10
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission is required to review proposed
acquisitions of real property within the City by the City; and,
WHEREAS, the parcel located at 2394 County Road 10, improved with the “Donut
Connection” bakery, has recently become available; and,
WHEREAS, the Realtor representing the owners of the Donut Connection has
approached the City with an offer to sell the 20,000 square foot parcel located at the
southwest corner of County Road 10 and County Road H2; and,
WHEREAS, the property is zoned B-3 (Highway Business) and has a Future Land
Use Map designation of Highway Convenience; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the subject property acquisition would be to facilitate the
redevelopment of this corner of the County Road H2/ County Road 10 intersection; and,
WHEREAS, a broad goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain a cohesive land
use pattern that ensures compatibility and a functional relationship between activities and
uses. This statement is further consistent with the community’s desire for coordinated and
meaningful development and redevelopment along the County Road 10 corridor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City
of Mounds View finds that the proposed acquisition of the property located at 2394 County
Road 10 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs staff to forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 2nd day of February, 2005.
____________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST
____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
to: Mounds View City Council
from: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
re: Harstad’s Red Oak Estates #3
date: January 10, 2005
As most of you know, the City has been involved in protracted land use litigation filed by Keith and
Diane Harstad regarding their property on Long Lake Road and County Road H2, known as Red Oak
Estates #3. The litigation finally concluded in November with a Judge ruling that the Harstad’s
special use permit for 72 townhome units issued in the early 1970s was still valid today, even though
the Zoning Code had been amended in 1977 to prohibit townhomes in an R-1, Single Family
District. In a closed session of the Council in November of 2004, with guidance from League of MN
Cities legal staff and our own legal staff, the Council decided to NOT challenge or appeal the
Judge’s ruling.
The ruling, again for your reference, was that special use permit was still valid and that if they
wanted to proceed with the development, they would need to meet all of the original requirements of
that special use permit, which include constructing a swimming pool and tennis court, correcting
drainage issues and gaining permit approval from Rice Creek Watershed District, the fire chief and
building inspector. With regard to Rice Creek, the project was granted original approval prior to the
commencement of the project in the early 1970s but that approval, which was valid for one year, had
since expired. Harstad will likely be seeking permit re-authorization from the watershed board in
February and the City will be bound by whatever plan RCWD approves. (The Judge ruled the City’s
own wetland regulations did not apply considering that the special use permit predated the wetland
regulations in place now.)
On Friday, January 7, 2005, Greg Lee, Kurt Ulrich and myself met with Marty Harstad to informally
review his 1974 townhome plat and to evaluate the issues and the process associated with the
implementation of his development. Because the lots are platted and because the Judge has ruled as
he did, there is no formal Council review required for this project to proceed. From a
communication standpoint, however, it would be prudent to hold an informal neighborhood meeting
to present the townhome plans to the affected property owners and to answer any questions the
residents may have. This meeting would be scheduled after the project receives Rice Creek approval
and Mr. Harstad has assured us that he will not proceed with any grading activity or clearing of trees
until after the City has an opportunity to meet with the neighborhood. Mr. Harstad anticipates a
spring groundbreaking for the development.
Attached is a copy of the original and still valid plat. The gap between Lots 52 and 53 is the location
of a pre-existing single-family house. Next to the house, on Lots 53 – 58, is a six-unit townhome
building, the only such building to have been constructed within Red Oak Estates #3. Access to the
units fronting County Road H2 would be achieved via one additional curb cut per building, or, five
additional curb cuts. Access to the interior townhome unit would be gained via two private
driveways as generally indicated on the next page.
Please contact me if you should have any questions about this development.
Inter-office
M E M O
Red Oak Estates #3 -- Townhouse Lot Configuration
Existing Home Existing six-unit
Townhome bldg
COUNTY ROAD H2