Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-2005 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 3, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: a. There are no minutes for approval 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. VR2005-009: Variance Request to Construct a Porch Addition that would Encroach into the Prevailing Front Yard Setback Applicant: Greg and Elizabeth Newman Address: 5323 Jackson 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. 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 Potential Acquisition of Residential Property Located at 2617 Sherwood Road for Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan b. Resolution 805-05 Finding that a Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 Conform to the General Plans for the Development and Redevelopment of the City. 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 17, 2005 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Mounds View Planning Commission Agenda Session August 3, 2005 1. Review Minutes: a. July 6, 2005 b. July 20, 2005 2. Staff Reports a. Planning Associate Recruitment Update b. Harstad Red Oak Estates Development c. Upcoming Planning Requests 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A Meeting Date: August 3, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing 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 a Request for a Variance to Encroach into the Front Yard Setback to Allow for the Construction of a Porch Addition at 5323 Jackson Drive; Planning Case VR2005-009 Introduction: The applicants, Greg and Elizabeth Newman, are requesting variance approval to construct a porch addition to the front of their home at 5323 Jackson Drive. A variance is needed in this case as the addition would encroach into the prevailing front yard setback, which is identified on this block as approximately 48 feet—18 feet more than the typical front setback. The porch would encroach approximately four feet into the prevailing 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. The Code also addresses the issue of “prevailing setbacks,” which is applicable for the home at 5323 Jackson Drive. The Code states that, “Where principal buildings in existence on lots within the same block on the same side of the street have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback for any new principal buildings shall be the minimum front yard setback in existence for any one lot. In no case shall the front yard setback be less than thirty feet (30').” The prevailing setback for homes on this block of Jackson Drive has been determined to be approximately 48 feet. The applicants would like to add a six-foot front porch to the part of their home that is set back approximately 50 feet from the street, bringing the building 44 feet to the property line, an encroachment of 4 feet. 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 the case of Mounds View) 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: Newman Variance Request August 3, 2005 Page 2 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 subject property is a typical rectangular shaped lot with no unusual characteristics or conditions. The only extraordinary condition present at the property is the prevailing setback of 48 feet, 18 feet more than what would otherwise be required. 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. 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, in that most homes in Mounds View maintain consistent setbacks, whether at 30 feet or 48 feet. Because of this, porch additions or any additions to the front of a home are usually problematic. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The home, constructed in 1951, was situated on the lot to provide maximum backyard area which effectively eliminated the possibility of a front expansion. 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 denied to others in the same district in that the Commission has granted front setback variances for porch additions in the past. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. A six foot front porch which encroaches four feet into the front setback would be the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the Newmans’ perceived hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to the adjoining properties. Given how far back from the street the homes on this block are, a four foot encroachment would not be discernable and would not disrupt the setback pattern for the block. 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 garage addition would not result in any of the above adverse effects. Newman Variance Request August 3, 2005 Page 3 Public Input Staff has not received any phone calls regarding this property and no letters of opposition from neighbors. One letter of support was received which has been attached for the Commission’s consideration. Summary: As stated above, the City Code indicates that for a hardship to be considered, each of the seven criteria needs to be satisfied. The Commission will need to determine whether the existence of a deeper than typical prevailing setback is justification enough to warrant variance approval. Front setback variances for porches have been granted in the past, the last two approvals brought the home closer than 30 feet to the front lot line. The Newman’s house, if the variance is approved, would still have a 44 foot front setback. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Staff has prepared a resolution for the Commission’s action if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Deny the request given the apparent lack of demonstrated hardship. Staff has prepared a resolution of denial which can be adopted if the Commission feels the hardship criteria have not been adequately satisfied. 3. Table the request if more information is needed before a decision can be made. Respectfully submitted, James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Building Footprints 5. Site Plan 6. Resolution of Denial 7. Resolution of Approval Zoning Map PUD PUD Properties not identified with a zoning designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 806-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH FOUR FEET INTO THE PREVAILING FRONT SETBACK AT 5323 JACKSON DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2005-009 WHEREAS, the applicant, Greg and Elizabeth Newman, have applied for a variance to encroach four feet into the prevailing front setback at 5323 Jackson Drive; and, WHEREAS, 5323 Jackson Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and is legally described as: Lot 11, Block 4 Pinewood Terrace No 2 Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Section 1104.01 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the minimum front yard setback for buildings in Single Family Residential districts is thirty (30) feet; and, WHEREAS, the prevailing setback for the 5300 block of Jackson Drive is forty- eight (48) feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance to construct a porch addition four (4) feet into the prevailing setback; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the following materials relating to this request: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Property Map 6. 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, * DENIAL * Resolution 806-05 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this variance on Wednesday, August 3, 2005; 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 makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. 2. The prevailing front yard setback for the 5300 block of Jackson Drive is forty- eight (48) feet. 3. The applicant is requesting to reduce the front yard setback to forty-four (44) feet. 4. The property is neither exceptional nor extraordinary in regards to shape or size. 5. Granting a variance in this case would confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 6. The variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 7. The hardship criteria as identified in Section 1125.02 have not been satisfied. 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 deny the request for a four foot variance from the prevailing front setback of forty-eight feet at 5323 Jackson Drive. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the applicant shall be notified of the right to appeal this denial to the City Council. The appeal shall be submitted in writing within 10 business days of the adoption of this Resolution. Adopted this 3rd day of August, 2005. _____________________________________ Jean Miller, Vice Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 806-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH FOUR FEET INTO THE PREVAILING FRONT SETBACK AT 5323 JACKSON DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2005-009 WHEREAS, the applicant, Greg and Elizabeth Newman, have applied for a variance to encroach four feet into the prevailing front setback at 5323 Jackson Drive; and, WHEREAS, 5323 Jackson Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and is legally described as: Lot 11, Block 4 Pinewood Terrace No 2 Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Section 1104.01 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the minimum front yard setback for buildings in Single Family Residential districts is thirty (30) feet; and, WHEREAS, the prevailing setback for the 5300 block of Jackson Drive is forty- eight (48) feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance to construct a porch addition four (4) feet into the prevailing setback; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the following materials relating to this request: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Property Map 6. 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, * APPROVAL * Resolution 806-05 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this variance on Wednesday, August 3, 2005; 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 makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. 2. The prevailing front yard setback for the 5300 block of Jackson Drive is forty-eight (48) feet. 3. The applicant is requesting to reduce the front yard setback to forty-four (44) feet. 4. The forty-eight (48) foot setback is unique and substantially exceeds the minimum required setback which is thirty (30) feet. 5. Granting a variance in this case would not confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners. 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title in that there does not appear to be any adverse effects resulting from approval of the variance. 7. The proposed variance would not impair supply of light and air to adjacent properties 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY 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 request for a four-foot variance from the prevailing front setback of forty-eight feet at 5323 Jackson Drive. Adopted this 3rd day of August, 2005. _____________________________________ Jean Miller, Vice Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: August 3, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing 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 Aug 3, 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 Aug 3, 2005 Page 3 Public Hearing A duly noticed public hearing has been scheduled for this meeting. Staff was contacted by one resident who lives south of Highway 10 wondering if the expansion would bring in more trucks and more noise to the site. Staff reviewed the plan with the resident and explained that the additional vehicle and truck parking would be occurring on the east and southeast side of the building. The expansion may result in less noise affecting residents south of Highway 10 as there would be less unnecessary and redundant maneuvering of the trucks. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing, review and discuss the SYSCO Comp Plan and PUD amendments. Resolution 802-05, a resolution recommending approval of the PUD amendment, Comp Plan amendment and transfer of land to Sysco, is attached for the Commission’s action if it is so inclined. 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. Jean Miller, Vice 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: Aug 3, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing 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 green space is preserved on the site. The only changes to the site plan as presented at the July 20 meeting is the clarification to the parking stalls and the realignment of the judicial stream that cross the property. Medtronic PUD General Concept Plan Report August 3, 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 a combination of surface parking 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. Phase two would add two more levels to the parking ramp constructed in Phase 1, and Phase 3 would add four levels of structured parking in the City of Blaine. The plan shows a total of 6,000 surface and structured parking stalls at full build-out. Municipal Coordination: City staff from Blaine and Mounds View met on July 26, 2005 to informally review and coordinate the processes for site plan review and other issues related to this development. Blaine staff was supportive of the project and expressed a desire to be helpful in any way possible. It was discussed that the Medtronic campus could potentially be served by Blaine water for fire protection as a back-up and supplement to Mounds View water which will be brought to the site from under Highway 10. Blaine staff would like to have the site plans and phasing schedule presented to the Blaine City Council in September for consideration. Site plan approval from Blaine will likely be an administrative step. Another meeting will be scheduled upon receipt of the more detailed development stage plans. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and take testimony from staff, the applicant and any residents or other interested parties relating to the general concept plan. Given the informal support expressed at the July 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, staff has prepared a resolution recommending approval of the general concept plans for an 820,000 square foot office facility at 8290 Coral Sea Street. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Concept Plan Submittal Information 4. City Code Chapter 1120 5. Resolution 807-05 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 Code 2 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 system 3, 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 Council 4. 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 plan 5 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) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 807-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE MEDTRONIC GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN; PLANNING CASE NO. PD2005-002 WHEREAS, Medtronic, Inc., has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for an 820,000 square foot corporate office campus on 72 acres of land and is requesting approval of the PUD general concept plan; and, WHEREAS, the land to be developed by Medtronic represents the City’s Bridges Golf Course located north of Trunk Highway 10 at 8390 Coral Sea Street, legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this matter on August 3, 2005; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View Municipal Code pertaining to planned unit developments; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the land use component of the Comprehensive Plan relative to this request; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the site plans date- stamped July 26, 2005, relative to this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the general concept plan of the proposed Medtronic Planned Unit Development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code and recommends approval of said plan to the Mounds View City Council. 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 3rd day of August, 2005 _______________________________________ Jean Miller, Vice Chairperson Attest: ____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Exhibit A – Medtronic PUD Legal Description Parcel 1: Outlot A, Sysco, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situated in Ramsey County, MN. Parcel 2: Outlot A and Lot 4, Block 1, North Star Industrial Park 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof; and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel 3: Lot 16, Block 2, North Star Industrial Park, except the easterly 40 feet thereof, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel 4: That part of Tract A described below: Tract A. The South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies northerly and westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the center of said Section 5; thence north on an azimuth of 359 degrees 23 minutes 10 seconds (azimuth oriented to Minnesota State Plane Coordinate System) along the north and south quarter line of said Section 5 for 781.42 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on an azimuth of 108 degrees 12 minutes 41 seconds, 231.14 feet; thence on an azimuth of 98 degrees 27 minutes 03 seconds, 1486.78 feet; thence run northeasterly for 447.16 feet on a non- tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 720 feet, a delta angle of 35 degrees 35 minutes 02 seconds and a chord azimuth of 76 degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds; thence on an azimuth of 59 degrees 07 minutes 40 seconds, 192.89 feet; thence run northerly 398.14 feet on a non-tangential curve concave to the northwest, having a radius of 850 feet; a delta angle of 26 degrees 50 minutes 15 seconds and a chord azimuth of 29 degrees 26 minutes 05 seconds; thence on an azimuth of 16 degrees 00 minutes 57 seconds, 303.65 feet to the north line of said Tract A and there terminating; Parcel 5: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 and 15, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3, Lot 4 except the South 60 feet and Lot 5 except the South 222.2 feet, Block 2, Laport Meadows, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota, except those portions which lie southwesterly of a line run parallel with and distant 100 feet northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range 23 West distant 688.09 feet south of the northwest corner thereof; thence run southeasterly at an angle of 142 degrees 35 minutes 45 seconds with said west section line for 1278.48 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 03 degrees 00 minute curve (delta angle 33 degrees 39 minutes 25 seconds) for 1121.90 feet; thence on a tangent to said curve for 1100.00 feet and there terminating. This legal description does not include parcels in Blaine. Item No: 6A Meeting Date: August 3, 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 Uninhabited and Blighted Residential Property Located at 2617 Sherwood Road Introduction: The property located at 2617 Sherwood Road is vacant and currently uninhabitable. The City’s has been involved with the property beginning in 1998 with the issuance of a building permit to make improvements to the home. The improvements went uninspected despite the city’s efforts to gain access to the property. Upon learning of several unsafe and potentially hazardous conditions within the home, notices of violations were issued, court citations issued and eventually warrants issued to the owner for failing to appear at the Court proceedings. During this same time, many other nuisance and building code violations were present and persistent. At some point, the owner defaulted on the mortgage and the City began anew with the mortgage company and a new owner in an effort to correct all of the unsafe conditions within the house and violations on the property. After repeatedly being told corrections would be made and not following through, the City brought action before the City Council on October 11, 2004 to declare the building hazardous and to authorize the abatement of the hazardous conditions. Discussion: In an effort to gain control of the property and put an end to the protracted legal proceedings, the City received permission from the property owner to conduct an appraisal of the property with the intent of submitting an offer to buy the parcel and demolish the building. The Council has authorized that an appraisal be conducted and a purchase price negotiated with the property owner. Before the City can acquire the land (if its offer is accepted) the Planning Commission will need to review the proposed acquisition to determine consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as dictated by Minnesota Statutes. The future land use map designation for this parcel is Low Density residential. The zoning for the property is R-1, Single Family Residential. The purchase would be funded by the Economic Development Authority through the City’s Housing Replacement Program. The property is identified on the list of parcels that can be acquired using tax increment dollars. Housing Replacement Program Created in 1995, the Housing Replacement Program is a voluntary program that allows the City to purchase blighted residential properties from willing sellers. The purpose of the Housing Replacement Program is to reduce the social costs of blight, improve residential neighborhoods and increase the tax base. There are three stated objectives for this program—replace deteriorated lower value housing with larger, higher valued housing; eliminate blight; and increase the availability of quality housing for families. The home will likely be substandard in some way or exhibit some level of blight. This is defined as follows: 2617 Sherwood Acquisition August 3, 2005 Page 2 1. Substandard as to condition, property value, size or usage. 2. Obsolete and having a faulty design for block and area in which it is located. 3. Deterioration which has caused blight to other adjoining properties 4. Detrimental to the safety or health of abutting properties in the block. The owner of 2617 Sherwood Road has agreed that a potential purchase of the home by the City would be an acceptable resolution to the ongoing issues between both parties. Ramsey County assessment records indicate that the property (land and home) have a value of $157,800. The 1300 square foot home, in the City’s opinion, is a liability rather than an asset, however any offer to purchase would need to take the both land and building value into consideration. The 1.54 acre property is zoned R-1, single family residential and its acquisition under the Housing Replacement Program policies would be consistent with said policies and guidelines and consistent with Mounds View’s Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation: Staff and the City Council is requesting that the Planning Commission review the proposed acquisition of the property located at 2617 Sherwood Road (the terms of which would be negotiated at a later date subject to City Council approval) to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Resolution 808-05 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 SHERWOOD ROAD 2617 Sherwood Road Property available for possible acquisition Site Characteristics: 1.54 Acres, Zoned R-1 Potentially subdividable Zoning Map Photographic Documentation - Exterior Photographic Documentation - Interior Aerial View MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 808-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF 2617 SHERWOOD ROAD CONSISTENT WITH THE MOUNDS VIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS REQUIRED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.356, AND RECOMMENDATION OF ACQUISITION TO THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission is required to review proposed acquisitions of real property within the City by the City; and, WHEREAS, the blighted and uninhabited parcel located at 2617 Sherwood Road is available for acquisition; and, WHEREAS, the owner of the property has consented to an appraisal of the property for the purposes of making an offer to acquire the 67,082 square foot property; and, WHEREAS, the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and has a Future Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the subject property acquisition would be to facilitate the demolition of the blighted building on the lot and make the parcel available for redevelopment; and, WHEREAS, such a redevelopment of the parcel would help preserve and protect neighborhood property values and would eliminate a blighting influence in the neighborhood. 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 2617 Sherwood Road 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 3rd day of August, 2005. ____________________________________ Jean Miller, Vice Chairperson ATTEST ____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL)