HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-20-2005
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
July 20, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes:
a. June 15, 2005
b. May 4, 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. VR2005-008: Variance Request to Locate a Shed in a Front Yard and a Six-Foot
Tall Fence in the Front Yard
Applicant: Richard Bagwill
Address: 5260 Jeffery Drive
b. PA2005-002: SYSCO Minnesota Request for a Planned Unit Development
Amendment and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Expand Their Parking Lot and
Driveway
Applicant: Phil Seipp, President
Address: 2400 County Road J
c. MI2005-004: Minor Subdivision Request, Two Lots into Three
Applicants: Marlan and Judy Arndt
Location: SW Corner of Sherwood Road and Fairchild Avenue
d. PD2005-002: General Concept Plan Review of the Medtronic Planned Unit
Development
Applicant: Medtronic, Inc.
Address: 8290 Coral Sea Street
6. Other Planning Activity
a. Review Council Authorized Sale of Land to Medtronic for Consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan
7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 3, 2005
8. Adjourn to Agenda Session
Mounds View Planning Commission
Agenda Session
July 20, 2005
1. Review Minutes:
a. July 6, 2005
2. Staff Reports
a. Planning Associate Recruitment Update
b.
3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports
4. Meeting Conclusion
Item No: 5A
Meeting Date: July 20, 2005
Type of Business: Commission Action
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow
(1) a Shed in a Front Yard and (2) Increased Fence
Height in the Front Yard of 5260 Jeffery Drive; Planning
Case VR2005-008
Introduction:
The applicants, Richard and Alison Bagwill, are proposing to relocate an existing shed from
the rear yard of their property to what would technically be considered the front yard due to
multiple street frontages. In addition, the Bagwills are seeking approval to construct a six-
foot tall fence along the rear property line of the home, extending south toward O’Connell
Drive into what again would technically be considered the front setback.
Discussion:
Setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01 of the Zoning Code. Each zoning
district is listed with the corresponding front, side and rear setbacks. In an R-1, Single Family
Residential district, the typical building setbacks are as follows: Front, thirty (30) feet; Side,
ten (10) feet; and Rear, thirty (30) feet. It is noted that sheds and garages, attached or
detached, can have side and rear setbacks of five (5) feet. Corner lots, while not unique in
and of themselves, do pose some inherent limitations and difficulties by virtue of the multiple
street frontages. Corner lots may be further constrained depending upon building location
and the lot geometrics.
The property at 5260 Jeffrey Drive is a non-rectangular corner lot with more lot perimeter
fronting street than non-street frontage. In instances where this occurs, the result is more of
the property is technically considered front yard and less available for more private rear yard
enjoyment. The applicants currently have a shed in their rear yard as shown on the existing
site plan. As the Bagwills state in their letter, the shed was placed in the backyard by
previous owners in such a way that very little backyard was left over for the owners’ use.
Relocating the shed to the end of the existing driveway would allow the Bagwills to capture
more backyard space, of which there is already little due to the odd lot configuration and the
fact that the home is situated closer to the rear of the lot than the front.
In addition to the request to relocate the shed, the Bagwills seek a variance to construct a
six-foot tall fence which would extend beyond the front line of the home toward O’Connell
Drive and tie in with the relocated shed, as shown on the proposed site plan. According to
the City Code, fences which extend beyond the front line of the house may be no taller than
four feet. Were this property not a corner lot, neither the fence nor the shed would
necessitate variance approval.
Bagwill Variance
July 20, 2005
Page 2
Variance Considerations:
For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical
difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly
burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning
Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its
decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02,
Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of
the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows:
a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective
date hereof have had no control.
The property has an area of 11,761 square feet which is 739 square feet less than
the required corner lot minimum of 12,500 square feet. Due to irregular geometrics,
more than 50% of the parcel perimeter is street frontage. With the sub-standard lot
size, there is little room remaining in the rear yard for private usage by the residents.
b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this
Title.
While the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive
the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, because of the
substandard lot size, excessive street frontage and minimal rear yard area, the
applicant is unable to make reasonable and desired use of the rear yard.
c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
The applicants are not the original owners of the property and had nothing to do with the
platting of the land, the placement of the home and the placement of the shed.
d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in
that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to seek relief from
perceived or real hardships. Corner lots, while not unordinary, do pose more site
constraints than non-corner lots. This corner lot is substandard in size and has a
greater than average street perimeter which together create a unique circumstance.
Bagwill Variance
July 20, 2005
Page 3
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
The applicants are requesting a two-foot variance in the height of the fence to allow for a
six-foot tall fence in a front yard area, which they believe to be the minimum to alleviate
the hardship. They also request that the existing shed be relocated alongside their
garage, separated by only five feet. They feel this would be the minimum to alleviate
their hardship.
f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other
property in the same zone.
Granting a variance to allow the additional two feet of fence height and a shed in a
front yard area would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Code.
g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within
the neighborhood.
The proposed addition should not have any impact on the supply of light or air to
adjacent properties, nor should it impact congestion of streets. The proposed
addition will not increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or decrease
property values in the neighborhood. Sightlines would not be affected by this
request and staff has not received any negative feedback related to this request.
Staff Opinion:
Staff has reviewed the request and assessed the hardship criteria and believes all have
been adequately satisfied to warrant variance approval.
Recommendation:
After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and
affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the
request:
1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 801-05 is attached for the Commission’s
approval if that is the chosen course of action.
2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should
direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the
denial.
Bagwill Variance
July 20, 2005
Page 4
3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered
or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request
until such information has been provided.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
Mounds View Zoning Map
Aerial Image
Existing Site Plan
Proposed Site Plan
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 801-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SIX-FOOT TALL
FENCE AND SHED IN THE FRONT SETBACK OF 5260 JEFFREY DRIVE;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2005-008
WHEREAS, the applicants, Richard and Alison Bagwill, have applied for a variance to
allow for a six-foot tall fence and 120 square foot shed in the front setback of their home at 5260
Jeffrey Drive; and,
WHEREAS, 5260 Jeffrey Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally
described as follows:
LOT 1, BLOCK 4, EIGENHEER SECOND ADDITION
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following
documents regarding this proposal:
1. Planning Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Location Map
4. Aerial Image
5. Existing Site Plan
6. Proposed Site Plan
7. Applicants’ Statement
8. Staff Report
WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to
property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship
thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique
or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and,
Resolution 801-05
Page 2
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, July 20, 2005, with regard to this
variance request; and,
WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all
must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request:
1. The exceptional or extraordinary conditions relating to the variance request is that
the lot is non-conforming in area, fronts two streets with more than average street
frontage, is oddly configured which causes limitations as to how the property can
be improved.
2. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would limit the property owners’
ability to make reasonable and desired use of the rear yard.
3. The applicants are not the original owners of the property and had nothing to do
with the platting of the land, the placement of the home and the placement of the
shed.
4. Granting a variance to allow for the six-foot tall fence and 120 square foot shed in
the front yard would allow the applicants make more reasonable use of the
backyard and property.
5. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owners a special
privilege denied to others in the same district due to the unique nature of the
existing conditions present on the site.
6. The two-foot height variance for the fence and the location variance for the shed
would be the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicants’ hardship.
7. The relocation of the shed and construction of the fence would not be materially
detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other property in the R-1,
Single-Family Residential zoning district.
8. A six foot tall fence and 120 square foot shed would not impair the supply of light
or increase congestion, would not increase the danger of fire or endanger the
public safety or diminish property values, and would not impair sight lines along
O’Connell Drive or Jeffrey Drive.
Resolution 801-05
Page 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning
Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public
hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby approve the variance request for a six
foot tall fence and relocation of an existing 120 square foot shed into the front yard setback at
5260 Jeffrey Drive, as shown on the attached site plan labeled Exhibit A, contingent upon the
following:
1. The applicants shall obtain approval of a zoning permit for the fence construction prior to
work being commenced.
2. If the applicants fail to commence construction within one year from the date of this
approval, the variance shall be considered null and void.
Adopted this 20th day of July, 2005.
__________________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Exhibit A – Approved Site Plan
New or Relocated Shed
120 square Foot Maximum
Location of
Six-Foot
Tall Fence
Item No: 5B
Meeting Date: July 20, 2005
Type of Business: Commission Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Discussion and Review of a Proposed Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and PUD Amendment to Accommodate
an Expansion of SYSCO Minnesota; Planning Cases
PA2005-002 and CP2005-001
Introduction:
SYSCO Minnesota, represented by Phil Seipp, President, is requesting approval of an
amendment to expand the SYSCO PUD site by approximately three acres to accommodate
an additional 100 vehicle parking stalls, 50 truck parking stalls and a widened, relocated
access road to the east of the building. In addition, SYSCO is requesting that the three acres
of land, to be transferred from the City to SYSCO, be redesignated from OSP (Passive Open
Space) to HI (Heavy Industrial.)
Discussion:
The City originally approved the SYSCO Planned Unit Development in 1989 and at the same
time approved SYSCO’s major subdivision which created their lot and Outlot A, which was
then deeded to the City for future parkland, open space or other public use. The Outlot
comprises almost 46 acres and since the original land transfer, most of the land has been left
natural. A small triangle of land adjacent at its southeast corner is utilized by the Bridges
Golf Course. As indicated in the attached project narrative, approximately three acres of land
would be transferred back to SYSCO to accommodate the proposed expansions. The
additional space would provide SYSCO, which is essentially built-out to the maximum
potential on its existing lot, the ability to improve efficiencies and expand their workforce by
about 100 employees over the course of five years.
In addition to the PUD Amendment and Comp Plan Amendment, there would need to be a
major subdivision undertaken to create the lot to be deeded back to SYSCO. The proposal
would involve the relocation of the SYSCO stormwater management pond which would
necessitate a Mounds View Wetland Alteration Permit as well as a permit from the Rice
Creek Watershed District (RCWD) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). All
costs associated with the SYSCO request would be paid by SYSCO. Finally, the zoning of
the three-acre parcel to be created, currently “Industrial,” would be amended to be consistent
with the SYSCO designation of “PUD”.
SYSCO Report
July 20, 2005
Page 2
Comp Plan Amendment
A community’s Comprehensive Plan is its principal guiding document which is adopted to
provide goals and policies dealing with land usage, housing, infrastructure, public facilities,
transportation, economic development and intergovernmental coordination. The future land
use map (FLU Map) is but one of the many maps, tables and exhibits in the Comp Plan
which together help determine and control how a community grows and develops. The
Comp Plan is a fluid document, in other words it is not intended to be rigid and static. As the
Community grows and develops, so too should the Comp Plan. As such, there is an
amendment process to make such periodic updates as may be necessary to keep the Comp
Plan fresh and relevant based on changing desires and expectations.
SYSCO has applied for such a Comp Plan amendment which requests a redesignation of the
three-acre parcel proposed for transfer from the City to SYSCO from Passive Open Space
(OSP) to Heavy Industrial (HI.) The redesignation would seem appropriate as it would be
joined with the existing SYSCO parcel currently designated Heavy Industrial. The Planning
Commission needs to review potential adverse effects of proposed or requested
amendments. In this case, no adjoining property owner would be affected or impacted, as
the City owns the adjoining property. There would be impact to the site by virtue of proposed
wetland mitigation resulting from the relocated driveway and relocated stormwater
management pond. The Economic Development Authority (the EDA) at their meeting on July
11, 2005, recommended that if the amendments and land transfer occur, that mitigation be
done immediately adjacent to the affected area rather than creating new wetland off-site.
The consultant working for the applicant has prepared a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
application package that will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council upon approval by the
City. Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the request, the
application (attached, labeled “Community Profile and Background”) will be forwarded to the
cities of Blaine and Shoreview, the counties of Ramsey and Anoka, Rice Creek Watershed
District (RCWD) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT).
Staff believes the proposed Comp Plan amendment is reasonable and supports a
recommendation of approval.
PUD Amendment
The amendment process for a Planned Unit Development is fairly straightforward. In this
case, the only amendment being considered is essentially an expansion of the site itself. No
changes in usage are being contemplated by this expansion. An amendment to the
development agreement would be prepared that would identify and assign any maintenance
issues associated with the relocated stormwater pond, potential access issues for the City to
the remainder of the SYSCO Outlot land, mitigation responsibilities and other issues.
SYSCO Report
July 20, 2005
Page 3
Public Hearing
A duly noticed public hearing has been scheduled on August 3, 2005, at the Planning
Commission’s next meeting. The hearing will address both the Comp Plan amendment and
the PUD amendment issues. A resolution has been prepared for the Planning Commission
for action on August 3. It is provided to you for review only at this time.
Recommendation:
Review and discuss the SYSCO Comp Plan and PUD amendments. The public hearing and
consideration of the amendment requests will occur on August 3,2 005. Please let staff know
if there are any issues or concerns related to either.
Respectfully submitted,
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Letter from Applicant
3. Community Profile and Background
4. Zoning Map
5. Site Plan
6. Aerial View
7. Resolution 802-05
Zoning Map
SYSCO
SYSCO
Outlot A
Aerial
SYSCO
OUTLOT
“A”
SYSCO
Driving
Range
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 802-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF (1) A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM PASSIVE OPEN SPACE (OSP) TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (HI),
(2) A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT FOR SYSCO
MINNESOTA, AND (3) THE TRANSFER OF THREE ACRES OF SYSCO OUTLOT A
FROM THE CITY TO SYSCO MINNESOTA;
PLANNING CASES CP2005-001 AND PA2005-002
WHEREAS, the SYSCO Minnesota, represented by applicant and president Philip
Seipp, has submitted a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) amendment relating to a proposed three-acre site expansion; and,
WHEREAS, SYSCO proposes a three-acre transfer of land from the City of Mounds
View (the “City”) to SYSCO to facilitate a five-year business expansion plan; and,
WHEREAS, in 1989, SYSCO deeded to the City the 46-acre lot legally described as
follows:
SYSCO OUTLOT A
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
Comprehensive Plan and Planned Unit Development amendments on July 20, 2005 and
held a duly noticed public hearing for the amendments on August 3, 2005.
WHEREAS, per Minnesota Statutes 462.356, the Mounds View Planning
Commission reviewed the proposed transfer of land to SYSCO and finds that the transfer
would be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby make the following findings of fact relating to the Comprehensive Plan
amendment, the Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment and proposed transfer of
land to SYSCO Minnesota:
1. SYSCO Minnesota is situated north of Trunk Highway 10 and south of
County Road J, west of Interstate 35W.
2. The SYSCO site, as identified in Exhibit A, is currently designated Heavy
Industrial (HI) in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Planned Unit
development (PUD).
Resolution 802-05
Page 2
3. The three-acre parcel to be transferred to SYSCO is currently designated
Passive Open Space (OSP) in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned
Industrial. A Comp Plan amendment to HI and rezoning to PUD would be
appropriate upon transfer.
4. The Planned Unit Development approved for the SYSCO site allows for the
existing usage, the transfer would necessitate an amendment to expand the
site and to address additional maintenance, access and mitigation issues.
5. The proposed transfer of land to SYSCO would be consistent with the goals
and policies of the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based on the above findings of
fact, the Mounds View Planning Commission does hereby recommend (1) that the parcel to
be transferred to SYSCO, as identified on Exhibit A, should bear the future land use
designation of “HI,” (2) that the PUD should be amended to include said parcel, and (3)
finds that the proposed transfer of land is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with the
following conditions:
1. That the Comp Plan and PUD amendments only be effective upon transfer of
land to SYSCO.
2. That the applicant arrange to create the lot to be transferred by amending the
SYSCO plat via the major subdivision process.
3. That the applicant arrange for and coordinate the Comp Plan amendment
process with the Metropolitan Council.
4. That the applicant apply for and obtain any necessary permits relating to
stormwater management and wetlands with the Rice Creek Watershed
District (RCWD), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the City of Mounds View.
5. That the applicant shall consent to an amendment of the existing
Development Agreement addressing maintenance, access and mitigation
issues or other issues as may be necessary.
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.
Resolution 802-05
Page 3
Adopted this 3rd day of August, 2005.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
E:\PA05-002 (SYSCO)\SYSCO PUD AMENDMENT REPORT - JULY 20, 2005.DOC
Exhibit 1.
SYSCO Site – Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
PROPOSED SYSCO AMENDMENT
Bridges
SYSCO
Proposed Area to be Transferred to SYSCO and Redesignated
from Passive Open Space (OSP) to Heavy Industrial (HI)
Area to be Transferred
Item No: 5C
Meeting Date: August 20, 2005
Type of Business: Commission Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 2812 Sherwood
Drive and 8084 Fairchild Avenue; Planning Case
MI2005-004
Introduction:
Marlan and Judy Arndt, owners of 8084 Fairchild Avenue and applicants for this request, are
proposing a minor subdivision of two lots to create a third lot fronting Fairchild Avenue. The
Fairchild lot would be split in half horizontally with land from 2812 Sherwood added to the south
lot to provide additional depth. There is an existing house, garage and shed on the Fairchild lot
that would need to be removed as part of the subdivision process. In addition, there are two
sheds toward the rear of 2812 Sherwood that would also need to be removed.
Minor subdivisions are those divisions of land less than two acres in size in which only one
additional lot is created. Minor subdivisions do not require a public hearing and in contrast to a
major subdivision, a Certificate of Survey rather than a plat is all that is needed to record the
change with Ramsey County.
Discussion:
The property at 8084 Fairchild Avenue is presently 25,700 square feet, or 0.59 acres. The lot is
zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and is designated as low-density residential on the
Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map. A minor subdivision of this lot would be
consistent with both the Zoning and Comp Plan. The existing Fairchild Avenue lot has 171 feet
of frontage on Fairchild Avenue, 21 more feet than the minimum necessary to accommodate a
subdivision. Each proposed lot would be 85.5 feet wide. The Certificate of Survey included
with this report indicates that the south lot to be created would also have joined to it the south
85.5 feet from the Sherwood Road lot. The resulting square footages, after the subdivision, are
as follows:
North ½ of 8084 Fairchild (Tract A): 12,828 square feet (0.29 acres)
South ½ of 8084 Fairchild: (Tract B): 19,243 square feet (0.44 acres)
2812 Sherwood Road (Tract C): 13,502 square feet (0.31 acres)
Zoning Requirements
The subject properties are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The minimum lot size for an
interior (a lot which is not on a corner), single-family lot is 11,000 square feet. As proposed,
Tracts A, B and C would all have an area in excess of 11,000 square feet. The minimum lot
width for interior lots is 75 feet—at 85.5 feet, the two new lots exceed this width.
Arndt Subd. Report
July 20, 2005
Page 2
Park Dedication Requirements
Every subdivision of land is subject to park dedication requirements. The City Code in Chapter
1202 indicates that up to 10 percent of the land value be dedicated to the City to help offset
future park impacts associated with the development of land. The Fairchild property is valued at
4.42 per square foot. Two new homes will be constructed as a result of this subdivision, yet one
of the homes replaces an existing home and thus should not be subject to the dedication. The
land value of the smaller of the two lots to be created (Tract A) would be $56,700. Ten percent
of that value--$5,670--would represent the appropriate park dedication fee.
Easements
With every subdivision of land, the City requires that drainage and utility easements be
dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. The Certificate of Survey provided by the applicants
indicates the presence of two existing utility easements and an easement along the front of
Fairchild Avenue for right of way purposes. The two new lots fronting Fairchild Avenue will
need to provide five-foot side yard and 10 foot front and rear yard utility easements. Staff will
prepare these documents with descriptions provided by the applicant’s surveyor. One of the
existing easements will need to be vacated—the five-foot strip that runs along the east five feet
of the south 85.5 feet of 8084 Fairchild Avenue. Vacation of easements is accomplished by
ordinance.
Technical Issues
The Certificate of Plat and Survey provided by the applicants has been reviewed by the City
Attorney and found to include some measurement discrepancies. The survey has been
returned to the surveyor for correction. The applicants have provided a Title Commitment for
the Sherwood Road parcel however a Commitment will also need to be provided for the
Fairchild parcel.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Commission approve Resolution 803-05, a resolution recommending
approval of a minor subdivision of 8084 Fairchild Avenue and 2812 Sherwood Road, with
conditions.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
Zoning Map
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 803-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF
8084 FAIRCHILD AVENUE AND 2812 SHERWOOD ROAD;
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI2005-004
WHEREAS, applicants Marlan and Judy Arndt have requested approval of a minor
subdivision of 8084 Fairchild Avenue and 2812 Sherwood Road, property zoned R-1, Single
Family Residential, legally-described as follows:
The South 170.99 Feet of the East 150.00 Feet and
The East 75.00 Feet of the West 150 Feet of the East 300 Feet of
Lot 64, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89
Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the applicants propose to create two 85.5 foot lots fronting Fairchild
Avenue and divide the rear 85.5 feet from the Sherwood Road parcel and combine it with the
south half of the Fairchild parcel; and,
WHEREAS, the applicants have submitted a Certificate of Survey for the proposed
minor subdivision indicating the new lots as Tract A and Tract B and the remainder lot of Tract
C; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicants’ request for a minor
subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202
of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicants’ request for a minor
subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 8084 Fairchild Road and 2812 Sherwood
Road and subsequent easement vacation, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicants shall arrange to have a Title Commitment prepared and submitted
for the Fairchild Avenue parcel for the City Attorney’s review prior to the approval of
the subdivision by the City Council.
Resolution 803-05
Page 2
2. The Applicants shall arrange to have the Certificate of Survey corrected and
resubmitted to reflect accurate measurements and dimensions.
3. The Applicants shall arrange to pay the appropriate park dedication fee as
determined by the Mounds View City Council prior to the City sealing the new
deeds.
4. The Applicants shall arrange to record new property deeds with Ramsey County
within 60 days of Council approval and provide the City with proof of recordation.
Failure to do shall cause the approval to become null and void unless, in the
opinion of the Community Development Director, delay is beyond the control of the
Applicants.
5. The Applicants shall execute new drainage and utility easement documents over
the two lots fronting Fairchild Avenue
6. The Applicants shall arrange to have a legal description drafted over the remnant
easement area to be vacated over Tract B.
7. The Applicants shall arrange to have the existing home and accessory structures
removed from the Fairchild Avenue lot and the rear 85.5 feet from the Sherwood
Road parcel. Any accessory structures intended to remain shall conform to all
setback and zoning requirements.
BE IT FURTHER 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 20th day of July, 2005.
__________________________________________
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
______________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Item No: 5D
Meeting Date: July 20, 2005
Type of Business: Commission Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review and Discussion of the Medtronic General Concept PUD
Plan, 8290 Coral Sea Street.
Planning Case PD2005-002
Introduction:
On June 27, 2005, the Mounds View City Council and Economic Development Authority
(EDA) authorized an agreement with Medtronic Inc. to redevelop the bridges of Mounds View
golf course. The approved project would entail a phased development process with the first
phase encompassing approximately 820,000 square feet of office space and related ancillary
uses. On July 11, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 760, an ordinance approving the
transfer of land from the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View EDA and then
subsequently to Medtronic.
PUD Intent:
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is to provide for the grouping of
land parcels for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel
by parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and unplanned approach to development. The PUD process is
intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and
open space through clustering of buildings and activities through conditional use provisions. It is
further intended that planned unit developments are to be characterized by central management,
integrated planning and architecture, joint or common use of parking, maintenance of open space
and other similar facilities and a harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. Given the
visibility and prominence of the bridges site, a PUD will ensure that the site is developed to be
architecturally noteworthy and context sensitive from an environmental standpoint.
Discussion:
Julie Snow Architects, a Minneapolis-based architectural firm hired to perform the site design
work, has submitted a general concept plan site rendition to give the Planning Commission an
opportunity to review the plan prior to the formal recommendation which is scheduled to occur
at the August 3, 2005 public hearing. The plan shows the anticipated full build-out of the site
which would involve four buildings connected by a low-level (one or two stories) atrium or
common open assembly area. The first two buildings are proposed to be a maximum eight
stories tall with approximately 50,000 square feet of space on each level. (At such a height,
the FAA would need to issue a revised letter allowing for the building height.) The trade-off of
having taller buildings is that more greenspace is preserved on the site.
Medtronic PUD General Concept Plan Report
July 20, 2005
Page 2
The concept plan is intentionally general; the buildings will not be constructed as simple
rectangles as shown but something with more of an architectural design appeal. The
rectangles are intended to show the general location and building massing. Similarly, the
creek that runs through the property south of the buildings will not be relocated in 90 degree
angled segments but rather more of a meandering, natural flowing channel. All of the
buildings will be erected with the Mounds View city limits although some parking and
potentially a parking structure could be constructed on the land within the City of Blaine.
First phase will involve construction of either surface parking or a combination of surface and
structured parking stalls totaling approximately 3,000 spaces. The second and third phases
will add two more buildings for a total 1,500,000 square feet of floor area. The plan shows a
total of 4,600 surface and structured parking stalls. Prior to the public hearing on August 3,
2005, the applicant will provide more detailed information and staging timelines consistent
with the submittal requirements as indicated in Chapter 1120 of the City Code.
Municipal Coordination:
City staff from Blaine and Mounds View will meet to review and coordinate the process for site
plan review and other issues related to this development. This meeting has not yet been
scheduled but will occur within the next two weeks once the general concept plan is approved
by the Mounds View City Council, at this point scheduled for August 8, 2005.
Recommendation:
No action is intended on this item other than the review and discussion of the proposed
general concept plan for the Medtronic development at 8390 Coral Sea Street. Medtronic
officials or their representatives will be on hand to respond to any questions or address any
concerns based on the presented general concept plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. City Code Chapter 1120
Zoning Map
Mounds View City Code
Chapter 1120 - Planned Unit Developments
SECTION:
1120.01: Purpose and Intent
1120.02: General Requirements and Standards
1120.03: Special Requirements and Standards
1120.04: Procedure
1120.05: Submittals
1120.01: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this Chapter of the Zoning Code is to
provide for the grouping of land parcels for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as
opposed to traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and unplanned approach to
development. This Section is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the
conservation of land and open space through clustering of buildings and activities through
conditional use provisions. It is further intended that planned unit developments are to be
characterized by central management, integrated planning and architecture, joint or common use
of parking, maintenance of open space and other similar facilities and a harmonious selection
and efficient distribution of uses. Specifically, it is intended to encourage:
Subd. 1. Innovations in residential development to the end that the growing demands for
housing of all economic levels may be met by greater variety in tenure, type, design and
siting of dwellings and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such
developments.
Subd. 2. Higher standards of site and building design through the use of trained and
experienced land planners, architects and landscape architects.
Subd. 3. More convenience in location of accessory commercial and service area.
Subd. 4. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics, such as natural
topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion.
Subd. 5. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and
orderly transition of land from rural to urban uses.
1120.01 1120.02
Subd. 6. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets, thereby
lowering housing costs and public investments.
Subd. 7. A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the Mounds View
Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 8. A more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of
zoning and subdivision regulations of the City1.
Subd. 9. To give the landowner and developer reasonable assurance of ultimate approval
before expending complete design monies while providing City officials with assurances
that the project will retain the character envisioned at the time of concurrence.
Subd. 10. To allow variation from the provisions of this Title, including setbacks, height, lot area,
width and depth, yards, etc. (1988 Code §40.24)
1120.02: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS:
Subd. 1. Ownership: An application for PUD approval must be filed by the landowner or jointly
by all landowners of the property included in a project. The application and all submissions
must be directed to the development of the property as a unified whole. In the case of
multiple ownership, the approval of the final plat shall be binding on all owners.
Subd. 2. Comprehensive Plan Consistency: The proposed PUD shall be consistent with the
adopted City Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 3. Common Open Space: Common open space at least sufficient to meet the minimum
requirements established in this Chapter and such complementary structures and
improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of the
residents of the PUD shall be provided within the area of the PUD.
Subd. 4. Operating and Maintenance Requirements for PUD Common Open Space/Facilities:
Whenever common open space or service facilities are provided within the PUD, the PUD
plan shall contain provisions to assure the continued operation and maintenance of such
open space and service facilities to a predetermined reasonable standard. Common open
space and service facilities within a PUD may be placed under the ownership of one (1) or
more of the following as approved by the Council:
a. Landlord control, where only use by tenants is anticipated.
1 See Title 1200 of this Code for subdivision regulations.
1120.02 1120.02
b. Property Owners' Association; provided, all of the following conditions are met:
(1) Prior to the use, occupancy, sale or the execution of contracts for sale of an
individual building unit, parcel, tract, townhouse, apartment or common area, a declaration
of covenants, conditions and restrictions or an equivalent document and a set of floor
plans, such as specified by Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 515 and 515A, shall be filed
with the City Clerk-Administrator, said filing to be made prior to the filings of said
declaration of documents or floor plans with the recording officers of Ramsey County,
Minnesota.
(2) The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions or equivalent
document shall specify that deeds, leases or documents of conveyance affecting
buildings, units, parcels, tracts, townhouses or apartments shall subject said properties to
the terms of said declaration.
(3) The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall provide that an
owners' association or corporation shall be formed and that all owners shall be members
of said association or corporation which shall maintain all properties and common areas in
good repair and which shall assess individual property owners proportionate shares of
joint or common costs. This declaration shall be subject to the review and approval of the
City Attorney. The intent of this requirement is to protect the property values of the
individual owner through establishing effective private control.
(4) The declaration shall, additionally, amongst other things, provide that in the
event the association or corporation fails to maintain properties in accordance with the
applicable rules and regulations of the City or fails to pay taxes or assessments on
properties as they become due and in the event the said City incurs any expenses not
immediately reimbursed by the association or corporation, then the City shall have the
right to assess each property its pro rata share of said expenses. Such assessments,
together with interest thereon and costs of collection, shall be a lien on each property
against which such assessment is made.
(5) Membership must be mandatory for each owner and any successive buyer.
(6) The open space restrictions must be permanent and not for a given period of
years.
(7) The association must be responsible for liability insurance, local taxes and the
maintenance of the open space facilities to be deeded to it.
1120.02 1120.02
(8) Property owners must pay their pro rata share of the cost of the association by
means of an assessment to be levied by the association which meets the requirements for
becoming a lien on the property in accordance with Minnesota Statutes.
(9) The association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet changed
needs.
(10) The bylaws and rules of the association and all covenants and restrictions to
be recorded must be approved by the Council prior to the approval of the final PUD plan.
Subd. 5. Staging of Common Open Space: When a PUD provides for common open space, the
total area of common open space or land escrow security in any stage of development
shall, at a minimum, bear the same relationship to the total open space to be provided in
the entire PUD as the stages or units completed or under development bear to the entire
PUD.
Subd. 6. Density: The exact density allowable shall be determined by standards agreed upon
between the applicant and the City.
Subd. 7. Utilities: In any PUD, all utilities, including telephone, electricity, gas and telecable,
shall be installed underground.
Subd. 8. Utility Connections:
a. Water Connections: Where more than one (1) property is served from the same
service line, a shut-off valve must be located in such a way that each unit's service may
be shut off by the City, in addition to the normally supplied shut off at the street.
b. Sewer Connections: Where more than one (1) unit is served by a sanitary sewer
lateral, the requirements of the Building Code2 shall apply for lengths between ninety feet
(90') and three hundred feet (300'). If the length exceeds three hundred feet (300'),
provision must be made for a manhole to allow adequate cleaning and maintenance of the
lateral. All maintenance and cleaning shall be the responsibility of the property owners'
association or owner.
Subd. 9. Roadways:
a. Private roadways within the project shall have an improved surface of twenty five feet
(25') or more in width and shall be so designed as to permit fire trucks to provide
protection to each building. Parking shall be prohibited within this twenty five foot (25')
roadway.
2 See Chapter 1001 of this Code.
1120.02 1120.03
b. No portion of the required private road system may be used in calculating required
off-street parking space.
Subd. 10. Landscaping: In any PUD, landscaping shall be provided according to a plan
approved by the City Council, which shall include a detailed planting list with sizes and
species indicated as part of the final plat. In assessing the landscaping plan, the City
Council shall consider the natural features of the particular site, the architectural
characteristics of the proposed structures and the overall scheme of the PUD plan.
Subd. 11. Public Services: The proposed project shall be served by the City water and sewer
system3, and fire hydrants shall be installed at such locations as required by the Fire
Chief to provide fire protection.
Subd. 12. Building Height: Height limitations shall be the same as imposed in the respective
districts.
Subd. 13. Refuse: Provision for trash pick-up shall be made according to a plan approved by
the Planning Commission and City Council4.
Subd. 14. Site Improvement Agreement: Prior to the issuance of a building permit as part of the
planned unit development, the permit applicant, builder or developer shall execute and
deliver to the City Council a site improvement agreement providing for the installation
within one (1) year of all of the off-site and on-site improvements as approved by the City
Council, secured by a cash escrow or surety bond in an amount and with surety and
conditions satisfactory to the City, to insure the City that such improvements will be
actually constructed and installed according to specifications and plans approved by the
City as expressed in such agreement. The amount of the bond shall be one and one-half
(1-1/2) times the estimated cost of the improvements as determined by the Director of
Public Works/City Engineer. (1988 Code §40.24)
1120.03: SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS:
Subd. 1. Residential Planned Unit Development:
a. Purpose: It is the intent of this subdivision to establish special requirements for the
granting of a conditional use permit for residential PUD projects which are in compliance
with the permitted and conditional uses allowed in a specific district, including dwellings,
offices and institutional uses of one (1) or more buildings in relation to an overall design
and integrated physical plan and in accordance with the provisions and procedures as
prescribed in this Title.
3 See Chapters 906 and 907 of this Code.
4 See Chapter 603 of this Code for garbage and rubbish regulations.
1120.03 1120.03
b. Minimum Project Size: The tract of land for which a planned unit development, general
residential project is proposed and permit requested shall contain not less than three (3)
acres of land.
c. Required Frontage: The tract of land for which a project is proposed and permit
requested shall have a width of not less than two hundred feet (200') perpendicular to the
side lot line or have two hundred feet (200') of frontage on the public right of way,
whichever is most restrictive.
d. Yards:
(1) The front, side and rear yard restrictions at the periphery of the planned unit
development site, at a minimum, shall be the same as imposed in the respective districts.
(2) No building shall be nearer than its building height to the rear or side property
line when such line abuts an R-1 or R-2 use district.
(3) No building shall be located less than twenty feet (20') from the back of the
curb line along those roadways which are part of the internal street pattern.
(4) No building within the project shall be nearer to another building than one-half
(1/2) the sum of the building heights of the two (2) buildings.
e. Density Bonus: As a consequence of a planned unit development's planned and
integrated character, the number of dwelling units allowed within the respective zoning
district may be increased by ten percent (10%). The building, parking and similar
requirements for these extra units shall be observed in compliance with this Title.
f. Townhouses and Condominiums:
(1) Minimum unit lot frontage for townhouses shall be not less than twenty feet
(20').
(2) Dwelling unit and accessory use requirements are in compliance with the
district provisions in which the development is planned.
(3) A townhouse shall have not more than two (2) stories.
(4) No single townhouse shall contain more than eight (8) dwelling units.
(5) No townhouse shall have a single exterior wall longer than eighty feet (80') nor
an offset between walls of more than ten feet (10').
1120.03 1120.03
(6) Townhouse projects shall have a usable open space area equal to four
hundred (400) square feet per dwelling.
(7) Condominium buildings containing eight (8) units or less and not more than two
(2) stories may entail zero (0) lot line construction; provided, that the association covenant
provides for it accordingly.
Subd. 2. Commercial or Industrial Planned Unit Development:
a. Purpose: The intent of this subdivision is to establish special requirements for the
granting of a conditional use permit to allow commercial or industrial PUD projects which
are in compliance with the permitted and conditional uses allowed in a specific district in
one or more buildings in relation to an overall design and an integrated physical plan.
b. Minimum Project Size: The tract of land for which a planned unit development,
commercial or industrial project is proposed and permit is requested shall contain not less
than five (5) acres for commercial and industrial projects.
c. Frontage: The tract of land for which a project is proposed and a permit requested
shall have a width of not less than two hundred feet (200') perpendicular to the side lot line
or have two hundred feet (200') of frontage on the public right of way, whichever is most
restrictive.
d. Yard: No building shall be nearer than fifty feet (50') to the side or rear property line
when such line abuts an R-1, R-2 or R-3 use district.
e. Landscaping, Screening and Surfacing:
(1) The entire site, other than that taken up by structures or landscaping, shall be
surfaced with a material to control dust, drainage and erosion.
(2) A drainage system conforming to the comprehensive storm drainage plan5 and
subject to approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer shall be installed.
(3) Development abutting an R-1, R-2 or R-3 District shall be screened and
landscaped in compliance with subdivisions 1103.08(l) through (5) of this Title.
Subd. 3. Mixed Use Planned Unit Development:
a. Purpose: The intent of this subdivision is to establish special requirements for the
granting of a zoning district amendment to allow mixed use PUD projects which are in
compliance with the permitted and conditional uses allowed within the PUD District and in
accordance with the provisions and procedures as prescribed in this subdivision.
b. Minimum Project Size: The tract of land for which a mixed use PUD is proposed shall
not contain less than five (5) acres.
5 See Chapter 1302 of this Code.
1120.03 1120.04
c. Frontage: The tract of land for which the project is proposed shall have a width of not
less than two hundred feet (200') perpendicular to the side lot line or have two hundred
feet (200') of frontage on the public right of way, whichever is most restrictive.
d. Yards: Minimum setbacks shall be the same as imposed in the respective PUD use
districts.
e. Landscaping, Screening and Surfacing: All site treatment shall be consistent with the
requirements of subdivisions 1103.08(l) through (5) of this Title.
f. Staging of Residential Development: Whenever any mixed PUD is to be developed in
stages, the proportion of residential development completed at any stage, when averaged
with all previously completed stages, shall not exceed the proportion of residential
development planned for the entire mixed PUD. (1988 Code §40.24)
1120.04: PROCEDURE:
Subd. 1. Application Conference: Upon filing of an application for PUD, the applicant of the
proposed PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the City staff. At such
conference, the applicant shall be prepared to generally describe applicant's proposal for
a PUD. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an
opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of and
conformity to the provisions of this Title before incurring substantial expense in the
preparation of plans, surveys and other data.
Subd. 2. General Concept Plan:
a. Purpose: The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit
a plan to the City showing applicant's basic intent and the general nature of the entire
development without incurring substantial cost. This concept plan serves as the basis for
the public hearing so that the proposal may be publicly considered at an early stage. The
following elements of the proposed general concept plan represent the immediately
significant elements which the City shall review and for which a decision shall be
rendered:
(1) Overall maximum PUD density range.
(2) General location of major streets and pedestrianways.
(3) General location and extent of public and common open space.
(4) General location of residential and nonresidential land uses with approximate
type and intensities of development.
(5) Staging and time schedule of development.
(6) Other special criteria for development.
1120.04 1120.04
b. Process:
(1) Developer attends application conference.
(2) File application for a conditional use permit or rezoning concurrently with the
submission of the general concept plan (at least twenty one (21) days prior to Planning
Commission meeting) consisting of the information and submissions required under
subdivision 1120.05(l) of this Chapter, General Concept Stage.
(3) City staff reviews application, prepares report and recommendations.
(4) Planning Commission receives application and report of City staff.
(5) Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council on the
general concept plan.
(6) City Council holds a public hearing.
(7) City Council reviews all recommendations and approves/denies application(s).
c. Optional Submission of Development Stage Plan: In cases of single stage PUDs or
where the applicant wishes to begin the first stage of a multiple stage PUD immediately,
applicant may, at applicant's option, submit development stage plans for the proposed
PUD simultaneously with the submission of the general concept plan. In such case, the
applicant shall comply with all the provisions of this Chapter applicable to submission of
the development stage plan.
d. Limitation of General Concept Plan Approval: Unless a development stage plan has
been filed within nine (9) months from the date City Council grants general concept plan
approval, or in any case where applicant fails to file development stage and final plans
and to proceed with development in accordance with the provisions of this Title and of an
approved general concept plan, the approval may be revoked by City Council action. The
City Council, at its discretion, may extend the filing deadline for a development stage plan
when, for good cause shown, such extension is necessary.
Subd. 3. Development Stage:
a. Purpose: The purpose of the development stage plan is to provide a specific and
particular plan upon which the Planning Commission will base its recommendation to the
City Council and with which substantial compliance is necessary for the preparation of the
final plan.
b. Submission of Development Stage: Upon approval of the general concept plan, the
applicant shall file with the City Clerk-Administrator a development stage plan consisting
of the information and submissions required under subdivision 1120.05(2) of this Chapter
for the entire PUD or for one (1) or more stages thereof in accordance with a staging plan
approved as part of the general concept plan. The development stage plan shall refine,
implement and be in substantial conformity with the approved general concept plan.
1120.04 1120.04
c. Review and Action by City Staff and Planning Commission: Upon a receipt of a
completed development stage plan, the City Clerk-Administrator shall refer such plan to
the appropriate City staff, Planning Commission and other review agencies.
d. Process:
(1) Developer makes application for subdivision (first phase of PUD) at least
twenty one (21) days prior to Planning Commission meeting.
(2) Within sixty (60) days of the submission, or such further time as may be agreed
to by the applicant, the Planning Commission shall review the development stage and
submit a written report and recommendations to the City Council. Such report shall
contain the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission with respect to
the conformity of the development stage plan to the approved general concept plan, with
respect to the merit or lack of merit of any departure of the development stage plan from
substantial conformity with the concept plan, and with respect to the compliance of the
development stage plan with the provisions of this Title and all other applicable Federal,
State and local codes and ordinances.
(3) Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the report and recommendations of the
Planning Commission, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on the plans.
Thereafter, the City Council may grant approval, resubmit the plan to the Planning
Commission for further consideration or deny approval of the plan.
(4) Upon City Council approval, the City Attorney shall draw up a PUD agreement
which stipulates the specific terms and conditions established and approved by the City
Council and accepted by the applicant. This agreement shall be signed by the Mayor, the
City Clerk-Administrator and the applicant.
(5) Where the development stage plan is denied approval, City Council action shall
be by resolution setting forth the reasons for its action. A certified copy of the document
evidencing City Council action shall be delivered to the applicant.
e. Limitation on Detailed Plan Approval: Unless a final plan covering the area designated
in the first stage of the development stage plan has been filed within six (6) months from
the date City Council grants development stage plan approval or in any case where the
applicant fails to file final plans and to proceed with development in accordance with the
provisions of this Title and/or an approved development stage plan, the approval shall
expire. The City Council may, at its discretion, extend for not more than one additional
period of six (6) months the filing deadline for any final plan when, for good cause shown,
such extension is necessary. In any case, where development plan approval expires, the
City Council shall forthwith adopt a resolution repealing the general concept plan approval
and the development stage plan approval for that portion of the PUD that has not received
final plan approval and re-establishing the zoning and other ordinance provisions that
would otherwise be applicable.
f. Review and Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation of the proposed development stage
plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
1120.04 1120.04
(1) Adequate property control is provided to protect the individual owner's rights
and property values and the public responsibility for own maintenance and upkeep.
(2) The interior circulation plan plus access from and onto public rights of way
does not create congestion or dangers and is adequate for the safety of the project
residents and the general public.
(3) A sufficient amount of usable open space is provided.
(4) The arrangement of buildings, structures and accessory uses does not
unreasonably disturb the privacy or property values of the surrounding residential uses.
(5) The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding area.
(6) The drainage and utility system plans are submitted to and subject to the
approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
(7) The development schedule insures a logical development of the site which will
protect the public interest and conserve land.
(8) The development is in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 1010 and
Titles 1200 and 1300 of this Code.
(9) Dwelling unit and accessory use requirements are in compliance with the
district provisions in which the development is planned.
Subd. 4. Final Plan:
a. Purpose: The final plan is to serve as a complete, thorough and permanent public
record of the PUD and the manner in which it is to be developed. It shall incorporate all
prior approved plans and all approved modifications thereof resulting from the PUD
process. It shall serve in conjunction with other City ordinances as the land use regulation
applicable to the PUD.
b. Submission of the Final Plan: Upon approval of the development stage plan, the
applicant shall file with the City Clerk-Administrator a final plan consisting of the
information and submissions required by subdivision 1120.05(3), Final Plan Stage, of this
Chapter for the entire PUD or for one (1) or more stages. The final plan is intended only
to add detail to and to put in final form the information contained in the general concept
plan and the development stage plan and shall conform to the development stage plan in
all respects.
1120.04 1120.05
c. Review of Final Plan: The Director of Public Works/City Engineer shall review the final
plans to assure their compliance with the general concept and development stage plans
and shall require appropriate revisions by the applicant wherever they do not so comply.
The Director of Public Works/City Engineer shall report the findings to the City Clerk-
Administrator who shall notify the applicant, in writing, of approval of the final plan.
d. Recording of Final Plan: Within ten (10) days of the City Clerk-Administrator's notice of
approval, the applicant shall cause the final plan, or such portions thereof as are
appropriate, to be recorded with the County Register of Deeds or Register of Titles.
e. Building and Other Permits: Upon receiving notice from the City Clerk-Administrator
that the approved final plan has been recorded and upon appropriate application of the
applicant, building and other permits may be issued to the applicant for development,
construction and other work in the area encompassed by the approved final plan;
provided, however, that no such permit shall be issued unless the requirements of all
applicable codes and ordinances have been satisfied.
f. Limitation of Final Plan Approval: Within one year after the approval of a final plan for
PUD, or such shorter time as may be established by the approved development schedule,
construction shall commence in accordance with such approved plan. Failure to
commence construction within such period shall, unless an extension shall have been
granted as hereinafter provided, automatically render void the PUD permit and all
approvals of the PUD plan. The area encompassed within the PUD shall thereafter be
subject to those provisions of the zoning ordinances and other ordinances applicable in
the district in which it is located. In such case, the City Council shall forthwith adopt a
resolution repealing the PUD permit and PUD approvals and re-establishing the zoning
and other ordinance provisions that would otherwise be applicable.
g. Annual Review: The Zoning Administrator shall review each planned unit development
at least once each year and shall make a report through the Commission to the City
Council on the status of the development in each PUD district. If development is not
progressing reasonably well, according to schedule, the owner shall be required to submit
a statement to the Zoning Administrator setting forth the reasons for the lack of progress.
If the City Council finds that the development has not occurred according to the
established development schedule or is not otherwise reasonable in the view of the City
Council, the City Council may initiate rezoning(s) to remove the planned unit development
district. In any event, it shall not be necessary for the City Council to find the rezoning to a
PUD district was in error. (1988 Code §40.24)
1120.05: SUBMITTALS: The applicant shall submit a sufficient number of copies, as
required by the City Clerk-Administrator, of the following exhibits, analyses and plans during the
PUD review process:
1120.05 1120.05
Subd. 1. General Concept Stage:
a. General Information:
(1) The landowner's name and address and landowner's interest in the subject
property.
(2) The applicant's name and address if different from the landowner.
(3) The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed
to the development of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner,
engineer and surveyor.
(4) Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject property to
effectuate the proposed PUD, including a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and
contractual interest held in or affecting the subject property and including an up-to-date
certified abstract of title or registered property report and such other evidence as the City
Attorney may require to show the status of title or control of the subject property.
b. Present Status:
(1) The address and legal description of the subject property.
(2) The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and
all lands within five hundred feet (500') of the subject property.
(3) A map depicting the existing development of the subject property and all lands
within five hundred feet (500') thereof and showing the precise location of existing streets,
property lines, easements, water mains and storm and sanitary sewers, with invert
elevations on and within one hundred feet (100') of the subject property.
c. Statement: A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the
market which it is intended to serve, showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive
Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to
permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable
regulations of the City.
d. Site Conditions:
(1) Where deemed necessary by the City, graphic reproductions of the existing
site conditions at a scale of one hundred feet (100') shall be submitted and shall contain
the following:
1120.05 1120.05
(a) Contours, minimum two foot (2') intervals.
(b) Location, type and extent of tree cover.
(c) Slope analysis.
(d) Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands and streams and flood plains within
three hundred feet (300') of the subject property.
(e) Significant rock outcropping.
(f) Existing drainage patterns.
(g) Vistas and significant views.
(h) Soil conditions as they affect development.
(2) All of the graphics should be the same scale as the final plan to allow easy
cross-reference. The use of overlays is recommended for clear reference.
e. Schematic Drawing: Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept,
including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and
common open space, residential and other land uses.
f. A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and a
tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as
a percent of the total project area which shall include at least the following:
(1) Area devoted to residential uses.
(2) Area devoted to residential use by building type.
(3) Area devoted to common open space.
(4) Area devoted to public open space.
(5) Approximate area devoted to streets.
(6) Approximate area, and potential floor area, devoted to commercial uses.
(7) Approximate area, and potential floor area, devoted to industrial or office uses.
1120.05 1120.05
g. Stages: When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time
extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such
stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date
for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open
space and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each such stage and the
overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage.
h. Open Space: When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open
space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the
care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities shall be submitted. If it is
proposed that such open space be owned and/or maintained by any entity other than a
governmental authority, copies of the proposed articles of incorporation and bylaws of
such entity shall be submitted during the development stage.
i. Restrictive Covenants: General intents of any restrictive covenants that are to be
recorded with respect to property included in the proposed PUD.
j. Feasibility Study: Where deemed necessary, a market feasibility study, including an
analysis of the proposal's economic impact on the City shall be submitted.
Subd. 2. Development Stage: Development stage submissions should depict and outline the
proposed implementation of the general concept stage for the PUD. Information from the
general concept stage may be included for background and to provide a basis for the
submitted plan. The development stage submissions shall include, but not be limited to:
a. Zoning classification required for development stage submission and any other public
decision necessary for implementation of the proposed plan.
b. Preliminary plans, drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equals one hundred feet
(1" = 100') (or scale requested by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer) containing
at least the following information:
(1) Proposed name of the development (which shall not duplicate nor be similar in
pronunciation to the name of any plat theretofore recorded in the County wherein the
subject property is situated).
(2) Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any significant
topographical or physical features of the property.
(3) The location, size, use and arrangement including height in stones and feet
and total square feet of ground area coverage and floor area, or proposed building, and
existing buildings which will remain, if any.
1120.05 1120.05
(4) The location, dimensions and number of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts,
parking stalls, loading spaces and access aisles and all other circulation elements,
including bike and pedestrian and the total site coverage of all circulation elements.
(5) Location, designation and total area of all common open space.
(6) Proposed lots and blocks, if any, and numbering system.
(7) The location, use and size of structures and other land uses on adjacent
properties.
(8) Preliminary sketches of proposed landscaping.
(9) General grading and drainage plans for the developed PUD.
(10) Any other information that may have been required by the Planning
Commission or City Council in conjunction with the approval of the general concept plan.
c. An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which final
development plan approval is sought.
d. A tabulation indicating the approximate gross square footage, if any, of commercial
and industrial floor space by type of activity (e.g., drugstore, dry cleaning, supermarket).
e. Preliminary architectural plans indicating use, floor plan, elevations and exterior wall
finishes of proposed buildings, including mobile homes.
f. A detailed site plan, suitable for recording, showing the physical layout, design and
purpose of all streets, easements, rights of way, utility lines and facilities, lots, block, public
and common open space, general landscaping plan, structures, including mobile homes,
and uses.
g. Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing topography
and natural site vegetation. The plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and its
conformance with the approved concept plan.
h. A preliminary and final plat prepared by a land surveyor, duly registered in the State in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, chapter 505, which shall contain a notarized
certification by such surveyor that the plat represents a survey made by the surveyor and
that the monuments shown herein exist as located and that all dimensions are correct, as
required by Section 505.03, subdivision 1, Minnesota Statutes Annotated, and a notarized
certification by owner or owners of the adoption of the plat and the dedication of streets
and other public areas as required by Section 505.03, subdivision 1, Minnesota Statutes
Annotated.
1120.05 1120.05
i. A soil erosion control plan approved by the appropriate watershed districts, Department
of Natural Resources or any other agency with review authority clearly illustrating erosion
measures to be used during construction and as permanent measures.
j. A statement summarizing all changes which have been made in any document, plan
data or information previously submitted, together with revised copies of any such
document, plan or data.
k. Such other and further information as the Planning Commission, Director of Public
Works/City Engineer or City Council shall find necessary to a full consideration of the
entire proposed PUD or any stage thereof.
1. The Planning Commission may, by a written order, excuse any applicant from
submitting any specific item of information or document required herein which it finds to be
unnecessary to the consideration of the specific proposal for PUD approval.
Subd. 3. Final Plat Stage: After approval of a general concept plan for the PUD and approval of
a development stage plan for a Section of the proposed PUD, the applicant will submit the
following material for review by City staff prior to issuance of a building or other permits:
a. A detailed landscaping plan.
b. Proof of recording any easements and restrictive covenants prior to the sale of any
land or dwelling unit within the PUD and of the establishment and activation of any entity
that is to be responsible for the management and maintenance of any public or common
open space or service facility.
c. All certificates, seals and signatures required for the dedication of land and recordation
of documents.
d. Final architectural working drawings of all structures.
e. Final engineering plans and specifications for streets, utilities and other public
improvements, together with a community/developer agreement for the installation of such
improvements and financial guarantees for the completion of such improvements.
f. Any other plan, agreements or specifications necessary for the City staff to review the
proposed construction. (1988 Code §40.24)
Item No: 6A
Meeting Date: July 20, 2005
Type of Business: Commission Business
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review Proposed Sale of Land to Medtronic for Consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan
Introduction:
On June 27, 2005, the Mounds View City Council and Economic Development Authority
(EDA) authorized an agreement with Medtronic Inc. to redevelop the Bridges of Mounds View
golf course. The approved project would entail a phased development process with the first
phase encompassing approximately 820,000 square feet of office space and related ancillary
uses. On July 11, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 760, an ordinance approving the
transfer of land from the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View EDA and then
subsequently to Medtronic. Also on July 11, 2005, the City Council approved the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment for the Bridges site, redesignating the area from
Passive Open Space (OSP) and Outdoor Sport and Recreation (SRO) to Office (OFC.) The
transfer of land to Medtronic, per Minnesota Statues 462.356, needs to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission to ensure consistency with the city’s Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion:
Originally planned for Council consideration on May 23, 2005, the Comprehensive Plan
amendment approved on July 11 changes the future land use designation to Office, which is
consistent with the present zoning of the site (Industrial.) The Planning Commission
recommended the Office designation on February 2, 2005 with the adoption of Resolution
783-05. Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the amendment was
forwarded to the Metropolitan Council, which approved the amendment on April 27, 2005.
Now that the amendment has been adopted by the City Council, the Planning Commission
needs to review the proposed transfer of land to Medtronic to assess consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan. (Review prior to Council adoption of the amendment would have
resulted in an “inconsistent” finding.) This statutory required review is not intended to solicit
opinion on the terms of the sale, the terms of the redevelopment or the redevelopment
process, only to assess the consistency with the comprehensive plan.
The proposed reuse of the site, as articulated in the contract for private development,
contemplates a first-phase development of 820,000 square feet of corporate office space. A
corporate office campus as planned would be consistent with the anticipated future land use
for this site. The proposed development will be designed to be context-sensitive with respect
to the natural amenities on the site, will minimize any impact to wetlands and will provide for
mitigation on site, will improve the flow and characteristics of the existing judicial ditch that
traverses the site. Via extensive studies which included a wetland delineation, property
survey and Alternative Areawide Urban review (AUAR), the impacts of a corporate office
campus on the site have been assessed and a transportation impact plan prepared to
address current and anticipated transportation infrastructure deficiencies.
Statutory Review
July 20, 2005
Page 2
Recommendation:
Resolution 804-05 has been prepared for the Planning Commission’s action. The resolution
confirms that the proposed sale of land to Medtronic would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, satisfying the requirement of Minnesota Statutes 462-356.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution 783-05
2. Resolution 6540
3. MN Statutes, 462.356
4. PC Resolution 804-05
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 A, 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 A, 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
RESOLUTION NO. 6540
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING 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 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.
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission adopted Resolution 783-05 on
February 2, 2005 which recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment;
and,
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2005, the Metropolitan Council approved the City’s request for
a Comprehensive Plan amendment that would change the future land use designation of the
golf course from OSP and SRO to OFC; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council reviewed the proposed amendment and
held a duly noticed public hearing on May 23, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council on June 27, 2005 approved the proposed
sale of the Bridges site to Medtronic and approved the terms of the purchase agreement and
contract for private development.
Resolution 6540
Page 2
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council makes 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.
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 City Council does hereby authorize and approve the amendment to the
Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan that would change the future land use
designation of the Bridges Golf Course as identified in Exhibit 1 to “OFFICE.”
Adopted this 11th day of July, 2005.
Rob Marty, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kurt Ulrich
City Clerk / Administrator
(SEAL)
Exhibit 1.
Bridges Site – Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
Bridges Redevelopment Site
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 804-05
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PROPOSED SALE OF LAND TO MEDTRONIC
CONSISTENT WITH THE MOUNDS VIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS REQUIRED
BY MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.356
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2005, the Mounds View City Council approved a purchase
and redevelopment agreement for the proposed transfer and redevelopment of the Bridges
Golf Course to and by Medtronic, Inc.; and,
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2005, the Mounds View City Council approved a
Comprehensive Plan amendment pertaining to the Bridges Golf Course site; and,
WHEREAS, the new Comprehensive Plan designation for the Bridges site is “OFFICE”,
and,
WHEREAS, Medtronic intends to redevelop the Bridges site as a corporate office
campus totaling 820,000 square feet of building area; and,
WHEREAS, Medtronic intends to develop the site preserving the large wetland on the
east side of the property and improving the characteristics and flow of the judicial creek that
crosses the site; and,
WHEREAS, a corporate office campus is consistent with the newly adopted future land
use designation for the Bridges site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission
does hereby find that the proposed sale of the Bridges site to Medtronic would be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, satisfying MN Statutes 462.356.
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 20th day of July, 2005.
Gary Stevenson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
James Ericson
Community Development Director
(SEAL)
Planning Commission Update
July 20, 2005
1. Snyders owns the Gas for Less site, Gas for Less is closed, pumps removed.
Snyders indicates the demolition will begin shortly, construction thereafter,
December opening scheduled. They will stay in MV Square during the
construction.
2. Harstad’s Red Oak Estates #3 development will be on the RCWD agenda July 27,
2005
3. Dr. Belting’s PUD Amendment request will be heard by the City Council July 25,
2005.
4. Caribou Coffee to open doors on August 6, 2005
5. Integra has submitted a formal waiver to have their request heard and acted on
within the allowed 120 days as provided by MN Statutes.
6. Planning Associate hire process. About ten applications received thus far,
deadline to submit an application August 5th. Anticipated start date, Sept 1, 2005.
7. City Hall Remodel project moving forward with plans and specs on the Council
agenda for Monday night. Staff has explored relocating to MV Square,
Silverview Plaza, the vacant LandCor building or the former school district
building across the street, but it looks like city hall operations would move to
community center during the remodel, with the PD at the Arden Hills Sheriff
station.
8. An offer has been made to Mark Beer, formerly with the Office of the State
Auditor, to become the City’s new finance director. Council to approve the hire
and compensation package Monday evening.
9. Monday evening, July 18, the Council held a special worksession to get an update
from Ramsey County and SHE regarding the County Road J improvements. Four
year construction project compressed into a two-year period of time.
UPCOMING PLANNING CASES
1. Variance to construct a porch in a front yard on Jackson Drive, south of Bronson
Drive.
2. Dr. Belting development review for 8,000 square foot single story office building
3.