Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-2005 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 21, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: a. August 17, 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. DE2005-003: Development Review for a Single Story Office Building Applicant: Dr. Greg Belting, Silverview Chiropractic Address: 2395 County Road 10 B. MI2005-007: Minor Subdivision Request – Lot Line Adjustment Applicant: James Benson Address: 8123 Pleasant View Court C. MA2005-001: Preliminary Plat Review and Rezoning Associated with the SYSCO Second Addition Applicant: Phil Seipp, President, SYSCO Minnesota Address: 2400 County Road J D. MA2005-002 and PD2005-002: Preliminary Plat Review, Rezoning and Development Stage Plan Review Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project Applicant: Medtronic, Inc., represented by Jim Driessen Address: 8290 Coral Sea Street 6. Other Planning Activity none 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: October 5, 2005 at Arden Hills City Hall or October 19, 2005 at New Brighton City Hall 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 7, 2005 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. September 7, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: Commissioners Miller and Scotch Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case VR2005-010. Consideration of a Variance Request for Reduced Parking Lot and Driveway Setback at the PAK Building. 04 Planning Case MI2005-005. Consideration of a Minor Subdivision Request – One Lot into Two. 03 Planning Case VR2005-012. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request to Replace a Six-Foot Tall Fence in a Front Yard Area. 02 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes July 6, 2005. July 20, 2005. August 3, 2005. MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Hull. To approve the Minutes of the July 6, 2005, July 20, 2005, and August 3, 2005 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Mounds View Planning Commission September 7, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case VR2005-010. Consideration of a Variance Request for Reduced Parking Lot and Driveway Setback at the PAK Building. This item was considered later in the agenda. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case MI2005-005. Consideration of a Minor Subdivision Request – One Lot into Two. This item was considered later in the agenda. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case VR2005-012. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request to Replace a Six-Foot Tall Fence in a Front Yard Area. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicants, Donald and Christine Gullickson, 7685 Groveland Road, are requesting a variance to replace an existing non-conforming fence in the front yard of their property. The existing privacy fence has deteriorated beyond repair. Director Ericson stated for approval of the request there needs to be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property. The property is on a busy roadway and sits six feet below the improved grade of County Road I. The applicant seeks only to replace what is present. Director Ericson noted the Planning Commission has not received any letters from neighbors opposing the requested variance. He recommended the Planning Commission approve the variance as requested. Chair Stevenson stated normally there would be additional questions with regard to putting a fence in a front yard but due to the elevation issue this request is unique. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Chair Stevenson asked if there is any area that is currently not a six-foot fence, and if so, it should be addressed at this time. Director Ericson stated yes, where the picket fence is; however, Mounds View Planning Commission September 7, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ the owners are tentatively proposing to put a six-foot fence there in the future which would then tie off the back yard and provide closure. He added this is not part of the original request but the resolution gives the owners flexibility in the future. Mr. Gullickson stated the picket fence is not presently being replaced due to finances; however, replacement is speculative for the future. Director Ericson stated the resolution provides for the future area where a six-foot fence could be added. Commissioner Hegland asked if this would require another permit. Director Ericson stated yes, a zoning permit for the new fence would be required. Chair Stevenson noted if a six-foot fence were added to this area the request would not come before the Commission because the area will have already been approved. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 812-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance Request to Replace a Six-Foot Tall Fence in a Front Yard Area; Planning Case No. VR2005-012. Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case MI2005-005. Consideration of a Minor Subdivision Request – One Lot into Two. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, Donald Olson, 2933 Oakwood Drive, is requesting approval to subdivide his lot located at 7851 Spring Lake Road. He would like to add the new lot to his Oakwood Drive parcel to provide more backyard space. Director Ericson stated the property at 7851 Spring Lake Road would be divided into four proposed tracts. Tract A would be deeded to 7865 Spring Lake Road; Tract B would be deeded to the City for right of way; Tract C would be the remainder of 7851 Spring Lake Road; and Tract D would be added to 2933 Oakwood Drive. He noted all zoning requirements have been satisfied; Tract D would not be considered buildable because it would not front an improved street. He added the subdivision would not result in additional dwelling units nor will it intensify development; therefore, Staff recommends no park dedication fees be applied to this subdivision. He reviewed the conditions of the minor subdivision. Director Ericson noted the Planning Commission has not received any letters from neighbors opposing the subdivision request. He recommended the Planning Commission approve the minor subdivision as requested. Mounds View Planning Commission September 7, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson asked who owns the lot to be split. Director Ericson stated Mr. Olson owns it. Chair Stevenson stated Mr. Olson, as owner, should be clear in the record. Director Ericson replied this would be added to the resolution, first whereas, directly after Mr. Olson’s name. Commissioner Hegland asked if 7851 Spring Lake Road is rental property. Mr. Olson stated he purchased the property in April or May of this year and is currently renovating it. He added he intends to sell it after renovations and the pending approval of the lot split. MOTION/SECOND: Meehlhause/Hull. To approve Resolution 811-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision Request – One Lot into Two, as Amended; Planning Case No. MI2005-005. Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case VR2005-010. Consideration of a Variance Request for Reduced Parking Lot and Driveway Setback at the PAK Building. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the subject property is a small commercial lot improved with a one-story concrete block building (the “PAK” Building). A variance is being requested for a reduced parking lot and driveway setback around the periphery of the lot to promote positive drainage and to provide better maneuvering of vehicles. Director Ericson indicated Mr. Perrozzi has provided two different options produced by Loucks McLagen, Velmeir’s civil engineer for the CVS project. Both options mitigate the sharp elevation change between the two properties by grading toward the PAK Building. This creates a two percent slope, or a six-inch drop in the span of twenty feet to the building. Director Ericson stated for approval of the request there needs to be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property. The lot has very little change of elevation over the property which causes difficulties with stormwater runoff. The poor grade is also a condition of the site. Additionally, if subject to the five-foot setback, the width of the drive aisle on the northeast and east side of the building would not be sufficient for emergency vehicle access, which the fire marshal deems to be a minimum of 24 feet wide. Director Ericson noted Staff believes there is sufficient hardship associated with this property to warrant a variance request to allow for a two-foot driveway setback along the northeast and east property lines. Chair Stevenson asked if the two-foot setback would change if the 24 feet were maintained on the east side. Director Ericson stated the two-foot setback should be adequate to address the issue. Mounds View Planning Commission September 7, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Rick Perrozzi, Building Manager, 2832 County Road 10, stated the front setback could remain as is and be blacktopped; however, on the east side the request is for as much flexibility as possible – a zero setback is preferred. Chair Stevenson asked what would happen with these two feet, if granted. Mr. Perrozzi stated they would be blacktopped. Commissioner Hegland asked if there would be a curb. Mr. Perrozzi stated yes. Chair Stevenson stated a curb would deter water from the CVS property. Commissioner Hegland stated if there is a zero setback snow may be placed on the CVS property. Director Ericson noted in the case of substantial snowfalls there is plenty of room at the back of the PAK property to pile snow. Commissioner Zwirn asked about the engineering reports. Mr. Perrozzi stated the engineers are from the CVS project; they are trying to correct the problem. He added he is in the process of getting an independent engineering firm to dispute the grading and stormwater flow because the proposed would allow water to collect against the building. Chair Stevenson noted the Commission did not act on the request at the last meeting due to an unknown outcome of a proposed meeting later in the week between Mr. Perrozzi and Velmeir. He asked what is the outcome of that meeting. Mr. Perrozzi replied the meeting never occurred. He added several days and times were offered; however, Velmeir initially did not return calls and would not meet him at the job site. Chair Stevenson noted the fire marshal indicated a 24-foot minimum width; therefore, he does not see any reason to allow more than the two-foot setback. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the stakes, depicted in the photographic documentation, represents the lot line and, if so, is it two feet west to the curb. Mr. Perrozzi stated the stakes represent the lot line. He added the lot line would move two more feet to the west. Commissioner Hegland asked where is the five-foot setback. Director Ericson stated the majority of the CVS curb is five feet from the property line; however, it is closer where the storm drain was installed.. Commissioner Hegland asked what Velmeir would do with the part that goes into their property. Mr. Perrozzi stated they are going to tear it out. Chair Stevenson stated more pervious surfaces such as landscaping should provide for less water coming to the building. Mr. Perrozzi stated an extra two feet would provide more chance water would run away from the building. Mounds View Planning Commission September 7, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn asked if the sidewalk next to the building would be removed. Mr. Perrozzi replied it would be removed and replaced with landscaping. Commissioner Zwirn stated he is inclined to approve a zero lot line because there would be a wider area for traffic control. He added several community members want to see the property enhanced. The stumbling block has been Velmeir and if Mr. Perrozzi is willing to do this on his own, the Commission should work with him. Commissioner Hull asked if there are retailers waiting to rent the building. Mr. Perrozzi replied there have been inquires but all want the parking lot done first. Chair Stevenson stated he does not see the rationale for a zero lot line. He added lot lines are arbitrary and if there is a few inch mistake there could be problems later. Mr. Perrozzi asked if there is a concern regarding setting precedence. Chair Stevenson replied absolutely. Mr. Perrozzi asked if he presented a zero-foot setback plan developed by a licensed engineer would the Commission be open to this plan. Commissioner Hegland stated he does not see how a zero-foot setback plan would make a difference. Mr. Perrozzi again asked if the opposition to a zero-foot setback is about setting precedence. Commissioner Hegland stated setting precedence is an issue as well as snow removal. Mr. Perrozzi stated the snow would drain into his property. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/__. To approve Resolution 810-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance Request for Reduced Parking Lot and Driveway Setback at the PAK Building; Planning Case No. VR2005-010. Mr. Perrozzi asked if the proposed resolution were passed could the plans be changed later if it was found that he could not work within the confines of the plan. Commissioner Hegland stated an applicant must work within the confines of the resolution, if passed. He added without a presented plan from a licensed engineer that two feet would make a difference; a zero-foot setback cannot be approved. He suggested action be postponed so a plan could be presented. Mr. Perrozzi stated he is looking for flexibility from the Commission. He noted he would prefer not to spend additional dollars on another possible resolution in the future if, after approving tonight’s resolution, he could not work within the confines of the plan. He added if the Commission is not willing to consider a zero-foot setback, presenting another plan would not be worthwhile. No second, motion fails. Mounds View Planning Commission September 7, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn asked if the Commission would be willing to split the difference and pass a resolution with a one-foot setback. He added this way if the lot lines were off by a few inches a one-foot setback would eliminate any problems in the future. Commissioner Meehlhause stated he agrees a zero-foot setback should not be granted; however, would be willing to compromise with a one-foot setback. Commissioner Hull stated he would agree to a one-foot setback MOTION/SECOND: Zwirn/Hull. To approve Resolution 810-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance Request for Reduced Parking Lot and Driveway Setback at the PAK Building, as Amended; Planning Case No. VR2005-010. Director Ericson noted changes to the resolution, from three feet to four feet, which includes the resolution title, whereas number eight, and the “finally resolved” paragraph. He added the site plan (Exhibit A) would also be modified to show this one-foot setback. Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Other Planning Activity. Director Ericson stated starting in October, and for the following six months, all City Hall happenings, except meetings, will be relocated to the community center while City Hall is being renovated. He noted all meetings would be relocated to the New Brighton City Hall; however, there is a conflict for the Planning Commission with the first Wednesday of each month. He requested the Commission make a determination whether to meet at the City of Arden Hills, to cancel these meetings if there is nothing to consider, or to meet on the second Wednesday of the month instead of the first. He added it would be inconvenient to have the Planning Commission meetings at different halls. Chair Stevenson asked if the community center couldn’t be used due to the local TV coverage problem. Director Ericson stated it would be hard to set up the meeting, i.e. individuals would need to hold cameras the quality of the audio and video would be a problem. He added City Council feels strongly the meetings should be broadcast. Commissioner Hegland asked if the second Wednesday of the month would work for Council action. Director Ericson stated it would because Staff reports cannot be turned around that quickly. Director Ericson suggested another option, that the Commission meet the second and fourth Wednesday of each month instead. Chair Stevenson, with Commission agreement, stated the Commission will meet on the second and fourth Wednesday of the month starting in October but may be adjusted each month. Mounds View Planning Commission September 7, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Meehlhause asked where is the City of New Brighton. Director Ericson stated directions and a map would be provided with the next Commission packet. Commissioner Hegland asked if the fourth Wednesday of the month would work for everyone. Director Ericson stated he believes so but will verify again with the City of New Brighton. Director Ericson introduced Heidi Heller, the new planning associate. Ms. Heller stated she recently worked in economic development with the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce, and before that worked in West St. Paul doing a variety of relevant duties. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: September 21, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Cheryl Felix TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. September 7, 2005 2. Staff Reports a. Sept 12, 2005 City Council Meeting b. Harstad Red Oak Estates Update c. Upcoming Planning Cases d. NW Area Library Taskforce Open House 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion Item No: 5A Meeting Date: September 21, 2005 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review and Consideration of a Development Review Request for a Single Story Office Building; Planning Case DE2005-003 Introduction: Dr. Greg Belting of Silverview Chiropractic Center (currently located at 2552 County Road 10) has entered into an agreement to purchase the empty lot behind Walgreens and plans to construct an 8,300 square foot multi-tenant building for himself and other small office type uses. The single story building would be situated against the back of the lot so that the back of the building fronts the wetland area rather than the Community Center. Background: The City approved Dr. Belting’s request for an amendment to the Walgreen’s PUD in July of 2005 to permits “Office” uses as an allowable use on this site, which was originally guided for a restaurant use. Efforts to market the undeveloped parcel behind Walgreens have been ongoing since its creation yet development has not occurred despite the best efforts of the owners, the realtors and City staff. Feedback from prospects and other contacts indicate that the site is too hidden by the Walgreens building. Limited visibility from County Road 10 and the oddly configured lot has prevented this site to be developed as a restaurant, as originally intended by the PUD. The parcel is a five-sided polygon with minimal street frontage on Edgewood Drive. To the north of the parcel is the Community Center, to the west is City Hall, to the east is the wetland and open space area, and to the south is the Walgreens store. The site is adjacent to County Road 10, the City’s primary commercial corridor, and has a County Road 10 address. Rice Creek Watershed District approved the development and stormwater ponds were constructed to handle full site build out, which includes the subject parcel. Development Review Discussion: Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View City Code requires that any new commercial development project must obtain approval of a development review. The purpose of a development review is to allow the Planning Commission to evaluate proposed development in terms of its consistency with City Codes and other requirements and to ascertain and mitigate any potential impacts to the adjoining properties and the community as a whole. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council, which then acts upon the request. Belting Report September 21, 2005 Page 2 Parking: The typical parking requirements for an office type use are 8 stalls plus one stall per every 175 square feet of leased office space. For an office building with a gross area of 8300 square feet, 55 parking stalls would need to be provided. Because the City calculates parking needs on a net basis, factoring out bathrooms, mechanical areas, entryways, stairwells and other similar areas, the number of required stalls decreases to 50. The site plans indicate provisions of 43 stalls; the remaining seven stalls will be available on the adjacent Walgreens site as was originally the plan with the Planned Unit Development. The applicant will need to execute a cross access, joint parking and maintenance agreement with the owner of the Walgreens site. Setbacks: The proposed building is set back from the north property line by 15 feet, from the east property line by 23 feet and from the south shared lot line by 15 feet. These setbacks are in excess of the minimum building setback of 10 feet established by Resolution 6588. The parking lot is set back 5 feet to the north, approximately 80 feet to the east lot line and 15 feet to the shared lot line to the south. The parking lot is set back 25 feet from the lot line fronting Edgewood Drive, well in excess of the minimum 5-foot setback. Access: There is but one access to the site which is the shared driveway onto Edgewood Drive. While it is possible for clients of the building to exit County Road 10 and access the Belting building indirectly via the Walgreens site, this would be a more circuitous route and would not be encouraged. Building Materials: The Walgreens PUD requires that the building shall be of high-quality masonry construction using brick and brick accents to match the Community Center, theater and City Hall. Materials and siding effects shall be consistently applied on all four building elevations. Snow Storage: There are areas on the site in which snow may be plowed and piled in the winter. If the plowed snow reduces parking on the site or detracts from the general appearance of the site, the property owner will be responsible for off-site snow removal consistent with the terms of the Walgreens PUD document. Landscaping Plan: The City Forester has been provided a copy of the landscape plan which should satisfy minimum landscape requirements. The following species will be planted on the site, pending the Forster’s approval: • Marshall’s Seedless Ash • Rubrum Maple • Northwoods Oak • Sunburst Locust • Snowdrift Crab Signage: According to Section 15 of the Walgreens PUD Document, the Belting Parcel is permitted a maximum 100 square feet of ground monument signage (excluding the sign base) plus an additional 100 square feet of building mounted signage per building occupant. Staff will review all signage permits to ensure consistency with both the PUD as well as Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code relating to signage. • Goldmound Spirea • Black Hills Spruce • Andorra Juniper • Anthony Watertree Spirea • Canada Red Cherry Belting Report September 21, 2005 Page 3 Lighting: The lighting plan is being prepared and was unavailable at the time this report was drafted. The applicant has been informed of the City’s minimum requirements regarding glare, light spillage and foot-candle readings. In addition to the detailed photometric analysis, the applicant will need to submit detailed specifications for all freestanding and wall-mounted exterior lighting along with pole heights. While the site does not border on residential property, it is adjacent to the Community Center and across the street from City Hall and effort must be taken to not over illuminate the site. Stormwater Management: The site was master graded during the construction of the Walgreens building and a large stormwater pond installed southeast of the site. There is an existing storm sewer designed to serve both properties. The applicant plans to tie into the stormsewer as shown on the grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plan. The runoff from the parking lot will sheet flow to one of two new catch basins which will direct the runoff to the existing stormsewer which ultimately flows to the large stormwater pond to the southeast. Run off from the building and grounds surrounding the building will flow to the east and be captured in a swale that runs the length of the rear of the building. The swale outlet is located at the southeast corner of the site three feet below the finished floor elevation of the building. The grading and drainage plans are being reviewed by the City’s consulting engineer for compliance with the City’s local water management plan. Easements: An easement originally platted with the Mounds View City Hall Addition will need to be vacated as a result of this plan. The easement had been taken assuming a different lot utilization. A new easement would be taken in its place. The triangular easement to be vacated is identified on the Sheet C1 of the submittal plans entitled Preliminary grading, drainage, erosion control & utility plan, at the northeast corner of the parcel. The applicant’s engineer has prepared the legal descriptions for the easement to be vacated along with the description of the easement to be acquired. Development Review Summary: The proposed office use on the undeveloped parcel would be consistent with the City’s Zoning Code and Comp Plan and would bring development and tax base to the site. There would not be a great deal of traffic generated by this particular use, so the impact to the area would be minimal. A development agreement will need to be executed with the applicant to ensure all of the specific requirements and conditions of development are satisfied and adhered to. Recommendation: Resolution 817-05 is attached to this report which recommends approval of a development review for the proposed 8,300 square foot single store office building at 2395 County Road 10. Respectfully submitted, James Ericson Community Development Director Zoning Map Proposed Site Plan Community Center WetlandsWalgreens Belting Building Aerial View Belting Site Building Elevation MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 817-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR AN 8,300 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY MULTI-TENANT OFFICE BUILDING MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE DE2005-003 WHEREAS, Dr. Greg Belting, owner of Silverview Chiropractic currently located at 2552 County Road 10, has an agreement to purchase the lot located at 2395 County Road 10 (the vacant lot behind Walgreens) upon which he intends to construct an 8,300 square foot single story multi-tenant office building; and, WHEREAS, the lot in question is zoned PUD which was recently amended to include “Office Uses” as those uses allowable on the subject parcel; and, WHEREAS, the subject parcel is legally described as Lot 2, Block 2; Mounds View City Hall Addition; and, WHEREAS, Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View City Code requires all new commercial development to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency will all codes, regulations and requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents relative to this request: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Walgreens PUD Document 4. Site, Grading, Drainage and Utility Plans 5. Building Elevations and Floor Plans 6. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request for an 8,300 square foot single story multi-tenant office building and recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan including fixture and pole specifications and a photometric analysis prior to City Council consideration. Resolution 817-05 Page 2 2. The applicant shall execute a cross access, joint parking and maintenance agreement with the owner of the Walgreens site and provide a copy of said document to the City for its records. 3. Building materials shall be consistent on all four building elevations. 4. The applicant shall consent to the dedication of an easement over the proposed retention / infiltration areas. 5. The applicant shall provide details for the proposed garbage enclose. The enclosure shall be constructed with the materials used for the building to maintain a consistent appearance. 6. The applicant shall execute a development agreement that specifies and articulates the requirements, conditions and regulations pertaining to the development of the site. 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 21st day of September, 2005. _____________________________________ Jean Miller, Vice Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: Sept. 21, 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: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of the Properties Located at 8123 Pleasant View Court and 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court; Mounds View Planning Case MI2005-007. Introduction: The owner and applicant, James Benson, has applied for an approval of a lot line adjustment between the properties he owns at 8123 Pleasant View Court and 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court. The subdivision would move the common lot line of 8123 Pleasant View Court (heretofore referred to as Lot 9) south 33.80 feet to meet the most southeasterly corner of 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court (heretofore referred to as Lot 6). James Benson owns both properties – he resides at 8123 Pleasant View Drive, and 8117-8119 is a duplex currently being used as rental property. The purpose of the land transfer is to move the property line to correspond with the corner of Lot 6, along with allowing more yard space for Lot 9. Discussion: According to the Mounds View City Code, a minor subdivision is a division of land less than two acres in area in which only one additional lot is created. The definition also includes lot line adjustments, even though no new lots (such as with this request) may be created by the adjustment. After the subdivision, both lots would comply with the area and setback requirements of their respective zoning districts. Easements: There are 5-foot wide side lot line and 10 foot wide rear lot line easements proposed over where the new lot line would be. There is no storm sewer along this property line. Zoning: Lot 6 (the duplex lot) is zoned R-2, Single & Two Family Residential; and Lot 9 is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential. While a zoning change is not required for this subdivision, after the adjustment, the property at 8123 Pleasant View Court will exhibit both R-2 and R-1 zoning designations. (A detached single-family house is permitted in an R-2 district.) Staff would recommend that the next comprehensive rezoning undertaken in the City include the slice of land divided from Lot 6. Park Dedication Requirements: Every subdivision of land is ordinarily subject to park dedication requirements. The City Council adopted Ordinance 745 last year however which provided for some flexibility in determining what—if any—dedication would be required. Because no new lots are created by this subdivision and no additional development would occur, no dedication should be required. Benson Report September 21, 2005 Page 2 Public Notice. Public notice is not required for this request. Given that no new development will occur, a public hearing or public notice was not warranted and notices were not sent to adjoining property owners. Recommendation: This proposed subdivision is merely a redrawing of one common lot line between two parcels in order for the lot line to meet with the rear corner of Lot 6. The associated uses will not be changing as a result of the subdivision. There will not be any impacts to traffic or congestion and the subdivision would not be inconsistent with either the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 816-05. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Existing lot lines 4. Proposed Subdivision 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Resolution 816-05 Zoning Map Aerial View Existing Lot Lines Proposed Lot Line Plat Map Lot 6 Lot 9 Photographic Documentation Photo of home located at 8123 Pleasant View Court, looking southeast along the lot line between the properties Lot 9 property line would move from the end of the fence to the pink stake. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 816-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 8123 PLEASANT VIEW COURT AND 8117-8119 PLEASANT VIEW COURT; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI2005-007 WHEREAS, the Applicant, James Benson, has requested approval of a minor subdivision to adjust the common lot line between 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court and 8123 Pleasant View Court; and, WHEREAS, the property located at 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court is zoned R-2, Single and Two-family Residential, and the property located at 8123 Pleasant View Court is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate and Plat of Survey for the identified properties, dated August 12, 2005; and, WHEREAS, both properties are owned by the Applicant and are legally described as follows: 8123 Pleasant View Court Pin #: 06-30-23-23-0016 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court Pin #: 06-30-23-23-0017 Lot 9, Block 3, Mounds View Development Company No.1, Ramsey County, Minnesota Lot 6, Block 3, Mounds View Development Company No. 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota, subject to easements. WHEREAS, the 33.80 feet of land being detached from Lot 6 and attached to Lot 9 is legally described as follows: That part of Lot 6, Block 3 lying northeasterly of a line from the northeast corner of said Lot 6 to the most southeasterly corner of said Lot 6, Block 3, Mounds View Development Company No. 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant’s 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 applicant’s request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, Resolution 816-05 Page 2 WHEREAS, a copy of the Certificate and Plat of Survey has been forwarded to the City Attorney for his review; and, WHEREAS, no park dedication fees will be recommended with this subdivision due to there being no new additional lots created by this subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision request made by James Benson, owner of 8123 Pleasant View Court and 8117-8119 Pleasant View Court, subject to the following: 1. The applicants shall execute and record two easement documents (one for each lot) which dedicate to the public for public use the proposed additional easement areas. 2. The applicants shall be responsible for recording new property deeds to effectuate the subdivision with Ramsey County within 60 days of Council approval. Failure to do so within the prescribed time frame (excluding unavoidable delays as determined by the Community Development Director) shall render the minor subdivision null and void. 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 21st day of September, 2005 _____________________________________ Jean Miller, Vice Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5C Meeting Date: Sept 21, 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: Consideration of Resolution 813-05, A Resolution Recommending Approval of a Preliminary Plat for the SYSCO SECOND ADDITION Major Subdivision and the Rezoning of the Land Transferred to SYSCO, Planning Cases MA2005-001, Introduction: SYSCO Minnesota has submitted an application for a major subdivision of their land located at 2400 County Road J and the City-owned land between SYSCO and the Golf Course (commonly referred to as SYSCO Outlot A). The subdivision is a replat of the original SYSCO plat, approved in 1989. The replat takes three acres from SYSCO Outlot A and combines it with the former SYSCO Lot 1 Block 2 to create an larger area which would be used to accommodate SYSCO’s parking lot expansion and relocation of the drive aisle. Currently the developed SYSCO parcel is 23.93 acres while the undeveloped Outlot A is 45.86 acres. No additional lots will be created as a result of the subdivision, which can be considered a lot line adjustment. Regardless, a major subdivision is still required to effectuate this transaction as the total land area involved exceeds 2 acres. The applicant has submitted an application to the Rice Creek Watershed District and would subsequently seek approval from the City Council for a wetland alteration permit. In addition to the preliminary plat, the area to be transferred will need to be rezoned to be consistent with the SYSCO site. Discussion: The SYSCO Minnesota site is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the existing zoning of the property, and the Planning Commission and Council reviewed and approved an amendment to the PUD to allow for the expanded development area. The Planning Commission’s resolution of approval, Resolution 802-05 recommended approval of the comp plan amendment, the PUD amendment and the transfer of land but did not specifically recommend the actual rezoning of the three-acre parcel from I-1, Light Industrial, to PUD Planned Unit Development. Developed Area (SYSCO Owned) Undeveloped Area (City Owned) Existing Area 23.93 acres 45.86 acres Proposed Area 27.22 acres 42.85 acres SYSCO Second Addition September 21, 2005 Page 2 Preliminary Plat Revisions The preliminary plat as submitted is in proper format and copies have been sent to Ramsey County, the Public Works department, the Fire Marshal and the City Attorney. The first revision which may be considered although will not be a requirement is to include the original SYSCO Addition Lot 1, Block 1 to this Second Addition. (See below for a graphic showing the original platted area.) The shaded area between SYSCO blocks 1 and 2 represents residual Long Lake Road right of way from when Long Lake Road terminated at County Road J, before Highway 10 was constructed. Staff has been in contact with the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer to determine if Ramsey County would prefer to keep this right of way which crosses the SYSCO property or if they would support a vacation. While there are utilities within the residual right of way, they would continue to be protected by a utility easement. If the County consents to the vacation, the SYSCO Second Addition would encompass ALL of the SYSCO property rather than just Outlot A and Lot 1 Block 2. Easements The Preliminary Plat identifies all existing easements on the SYSCO site including those drainage easements within Outlot A. One such easement area over a wetland area will need to be partially vacated, as the new lot line would bisect the easement. The area disconnected from the wetland would need to be vacated (as it will be replaced with a driveway and parking lot.) New easements will be needed for the relocated storm water pond and a strip of land alongside the relocated driveway on the east side of the lot. The new easements to be dedicated and the partial easement to be vacated are shown on Exhibit A to Resolution 813-05. Lot 1 Block 1 Lot 1 Block 2 SYSCO Outlot A SYSCO Second Addition September 21, 2005 Page 3 Park Dedication Fees While the Planning Commission does not pass judgment on park dedication fees, based on the PUD amendment review from the Planning Commission and the approval by the City Council, it appeared that the consensus from both bodies was that no park dedication would be applied to the subdivision. Recommendation: Review and consider the SYSCO Second Addition preliminary plat and proposed rezoning. Resolution 513-05, a resolution recommending approval of both the preliminary plat and proposed rezoning is attached for your authorization, if the Commission feels so inclined. James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. SYSCO Second Addition Preliminary Plat 4. Parcel A description and Survey 5. Resolution 813-05 6. Zoning Map Aerial View MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 813-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SYSCO SECOND ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PROPOSED REZONING OF THE TRANSFERRED LAND; PLANNING CASES NO. MA2005-001 WHEREAS, SYSCO Minnesota, represented by president Phil Seipp, has applied for a major subdivision to divide three acres of land from SYSCO Outlot A combining it with Lot 1, Block 2 of SYSCO Addition and rezoning it to be consistent with the balance of the SYSCO property; and, WHEREAS, SYSCO Minnesota is located at 2400 County Road J and is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, bearing a future land use designation of Heavy Industrial (HI) according to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the preliminary plat date-stamped August 25, 2005 identifies the three acre parcel to be divided from SYSCO Outlot A, which can be legally described as follows: WHEREAS, the three acre parcel to be combined with Lot 1 Block 2 SYSCO to create Lot 1 Block 1 SYSCO Second Addition is presently zoned I-1, Light Industrial; and, WHEREAS, the proposed major subdivision encompasses land within a Wetland Zoning District and because wetlands will be impacted, a Rice Creek Watershed District permit is needed as is a Mounds View Wetland Alteration Permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Preliminary Plat, date stamped Aug 25, 2005 4. Parcel A Survey and Description 5. Staff Report Resolution 813-05 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact related to the proposed SYSCO Second Addition preliminary plat and rezoning request: 1. The proposed major subdivision divides and combines a three-acre parcel from SYSCO Outlot A to SYSCO Lot 1, Block 2 creating Lot 1, Block 1 of SYSCO Second Addition. 2. No additional lots are created by this subdivision which can be considered a large scale lot line adjustment and rezoning action. 3. Part of an easement will need to be vacated and new easements dedicated by this plat, as shown in Exhibit A. 4. The preliminary plat has been routed to outside agencies and circulated internally for comment and review. 5. The three acres to be transferred exhibits a consistent zoning designation but not the same designation thus should be formally updated to reflect the City Council’s PUD amendment authorization. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings of fact and its review of the documentation presented, does hereby recommend approval of the SYSCO Second Addition preliminary plat, with stipulations as follows: 1. The applicant shall arrange to include SYSCO Lot 1, Block 1 with the SYSCO Second Addition plat to make one lot, showing the residual Long Lake Road right of way as being vacated, if deemed practical and if supported by Ramsey County. An easement shall be dedicated on the plat to protect existing utilities which may be exist within this right of way. 2. The applicant shall arrange to dedicate a drainage and utility easement on the plat as shown in Exhibit A 3. The applicant shall execute an access agreement in favor of the City of Mounds View and its authorized representatives and shall final grade the site such that vehicular travel is permitted to the south property line bordering SYSCO Outlot A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings of fact and its review of the documentation presented, does hereby recommend approval of the rezoning of the land described as Parcel A on Exhibit B from I-1, Light Industrial, to PUD, Planned Unit Development. Resolution 813-05 Page 3 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 21st day of September, 2005 ____________________________________ Jean Miller, Acting Chairperson Attest: ____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (Seal) Resolution 813-05 Page 4 EXHIBIT A. New Easement Area New Easement Area Easement to be Vacated Resolution 813-05 Page 5 EXHIBIT B Legal Description of the area to be rezoned from I-1 to PUD: Item No: 5D Meeting Date: Sept 21, 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 Consideration of the Medtronic CRM Preliminary Plat and the Development Stage Plans of the Medtronic PUD, 8290 Coral Sea Street; Planning Cases PD2005-002 & MA2005-002 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 development was a multi-phased project 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. 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, the PUD approach will ensure that the site is developed to be architecturally noteworthy and context sensitive from an environmental standpoint. Previously: The concept plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission informally on July 20, 2005 and then formally on August 3, 2005. After taking testimony from staff, residents in attendance and the applicant, the Commission considered the resolution of approval, which failed on a tie vote. Those voting in opposition to the concept plan did so due to (among other reasons) concerns about proposed building heights and the fact that the FAA had not yet consented to the proposed heights. The City Council considered the concept plans at their meeting on August 22, 2005, approving them without condition. The Council members supported the proposed building heights recognizing that the additional height resulted in more greenspace preserved on the site. Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s meeting on August 3, 2005, the City was provided copies of correspondence from the FAA in which it consented to the building heights as proposed. Medtronic Review September 21, 2005 Page 2 Discussion: Opus Architects & Engineers have submitted the detailed site plans, surveys and preliminary plat for this second stage of the PUD process. The plans, date-stamped September 9, 2005, include the following plan sheets: 1. S1 PUD Site Plan 2. C2 Existing Conditions 3. C3 Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control (SW Quad) 4. C4 Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control (SE Quad) 5. C5 Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control (NW Quad) 6. C6 Utility Plan (SW Quad) 7. C7 Utility Plan (SE Quad) 8. C8 Utility Plan (NW Quad) 9. C9 Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) 10. C10 SWPPP Details 11. C11 Site Details 12. C12 Additional Site details 13. C13 Wetland Mitigation Plan 14. A2.01 Master Floor Plan – Level 1 15. A2.02 Master Floor Plan – Level 2 and above 16. A3.0 Elevation Sheet 17. A3.1 Perspective Sheet 18. Topographic Survey – Blaine Land 19-21. Golf Course Boundary and Topographic Survey 22. Medtronic CRM Preliminary Plat In addition to these full-size plan sheets, the Commission has been provided with 11 x 17 reduced color versions of Sheets A3.0 and A3.1, the Elevation and Perspective Sheets, as well as the site plan. What has changed? In addition to the extra detail and scope of the plan submittal, a few minor revisions and changes have been made to the plans presented to the Planning Commission on July 20 and August 3. While the changes are not insignificant, they reflect only modifications to the design and layout of the structures rather than bulk and height. As the Commission may recall, the original concept plan identified four distinct buildings in a pin-wheel orientation tied together by a two-story atrium-like commons area. While there remains four distinct eight-story buildings, these are now all oriented in an east-west fashion to enhance environmental sustainability. The first two phases would be linked together by stacked corridors and meeting rooms 60 feet wide except at the main level where the connective space is 180 feet wide. The first phase would be connected to the parking ramp north of the buildings at the ground level, where the daycare and service areas would be located. The parking plan remains the same, in that Phase 1 would include a three-story structured ramp to the north and the 900 surface stalls near the building entrance. Phase 2 would involve two more floors added to the north ramp and Phase 3 would involve a ramp in the City of Blaine. Medtronic Review September 21, 2005 Page 3 Building and Parking Phasing Building Space Parking spaces Phase 1 2 buildings connected by Commons/atrium area 820,000 square feet total 2,100 structured stalls 900 surface stalls Phase 2 1 additional building 380,000 more square feet 1,400 more structured stalls by adding two more levels onto Phase 1 parking structure Phase 3 1 additional building 300,000 more square feet 1,600 structured stalls in four level ramp Å located in Blaine Total at full Build out 1,500,000 square feet in four connected buildings 6,000 structured and surface parking stalls, two parking structures Building Perspective Setbacks The buildings are set back a minimum of 40-feet from the periphery lot line, which is consistent with the minimum requirements within a PUD. The buildings will be no closer than 80 feet to Highway 10 and 60 feet to Coral Sea Street and 82 Lane NE. The Phase 1 parking ramp will be set back 100 feet from Coral Sea Street to preserve an existing stand of mature Scarlet Oak trees. The parking lot / ramp along 82 Lane NE will be set back 40 feet. Medtronic Review Sept 21, 2005 Page 4 The building will be constructed of precast concrete wall panels with horizontal and vertical reveals. The base of the building will have a decorative or specialty stone base. The rooftop utilities will be hidden from view by metal panel screens to match the color scheme of the building. The facade will be dominated by a series of reflective one-inch thick vision glass windows set in prefinished thermal break frames. The first floor of the building will have a 20- foot sidewall height while all subsequent floors will be at a 15 foot height except the top floor which will be 17 feet. The total building height, including the roof mounted mechanical screens, will be 140 feet. Traffic and Circulation At the time of Phase 1 completion, Coral Sea Street will have been expanded to allow for five full lanes of traffic movement at County Road J. Medtronic is proposing a small round-about at the access to the parking ramp to help coordinate and channel traffic to the site. A second larger round-about is planned at the primary entrance to the facility with a small, separate pull out for child care pick-up and drop off. The buildings will be encircled by a twenty-foot wide fire access road with a service spur to the back of the building for service and deliveries. In this area as well there is another small round-about to help govern the flow of traffic. The surface parking area will take access from 82nd Lane NE. The parking ramp will be accessed from Coral Sea Street with the service road north and west of the ramp. There will be two controlled intersections to serve the Medtronic project by the time of Phase 1 completion. The County Road J and Coral Sea Street intersection will be signalized along with other improvements to County Road J, to supplement the existing signalized intersection at County J and West 35W Drive. Both intersections will permit through traffic movements to the north after Coral Sea is reconstructed north of County Road J. Building Elevation Medtronic Review September 21, 2005 Page 5 Landscape Plan The City Forester has been provided a copy of the Landscape Plan which is illustrated on Sheet S-1, PUD Site Plan. City Forester Wriskey indicates the variety and locations of plantings are satisfactory but cautions that plantings in parking lot islands and infiltration swales could become damaged during winter months if care is not exercised while plowing the parking lot. Mr. Wriskey will work directly with the landscape planner and contractor to monitor installation. Trail System Consistent with their other locations, the Medtronic plans identify a system of trails for employee usage. Much of the existing golf course trail system will be preserved and tied back to the facility, including the boardwalk through the primary wetland. The trails are shown on the site plan below. While not a part of this plan, the City intends to explore construction of a separate trail system within the Sysco Outlot area which residents, Medtronic employees, Sysco employees or any other workers in the area could utilize. Medtronic Review September 21, 2005 Page 6 Stormwater and Wetlands Management Page C13 of the plans illustrates the Wetland Mitigation plan and identifies all stormwater ponds to serve the development. All runoff and necessary mitigation will be contained and captured on site. Only one wetland in the project area will be impacted, that being the area labeled 1B alongside the Phase 1 parking ramp. The other area, while identified as a wetland, is the present location of Judicial Ditch #1. The ditch will be relocated away from the building alongside Highway 10 with a wider, more natural, meandering channel. (The site plan on the previous pages illustrates the new ditch location.) Presently, there are approximately 25 acres of wetlands and ponds on the site. Two new stormwater ponds will be created and an existing pond expanded to accommodate the run off on site. Medtronic has applied for a stormwater permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District. The City Council will consider Medtronic’s wetland alteration permit in October. Utilities The golf course site is presently served by the City of Blaine for water and sanitary services. For this project, the City will install a new sanitary and a looped water service under Highway 10 for Medtronic. While there had been some discussion about using Blaine’s water supply for fire suppression purposes, it made more sense to utilize just one supply for both potable water and fire suppression. The water main will be looped around the building with fire hydrants spaced per fire code regulations. The sanitary lines will run parallel to the building on the west and east elevations. Storm sewers will be constructed to serve the site with catch basins located along the fire access road and in the surface parking lot. The storm sewers will drain into the two stormwater ponds on either side of the building. All utilities will be installed underground. Lighting A lighting plan or photometric analysis was not provided with the development stage plans. While Staff has communicated with the applicant’s representatives that such a plan will be required, the distance from residential uses and the setbacks from other properties, it will not be difficult to satisfy the minimum requirements. A stipulation has been added to the Planning Commission’s resolution which requires that such a plan be submitted prior to City Council consideration. Signage A sign plan has not yet been submitted for review. The resolution will include a requirement that all signage be code compliant unless otherwise permitted or authorized by the PUD Document. Given the extensive frontage along Highway 10, more than one ground sign may be constructed which would be consistent with Section1008.10 of the Sign Code. The Sign Code does not place a maximum square footage on ground signs in a PUD, the code expressly defers to the PUD narrative document. Staff will work with Medtronic to allow for a gateway sign to be located on Medtronic property near 35 W and Highway 10. Medtronic Review September 21, 2005 Page 7 PUD Evaluation Criteria The City Code highlights certain criteria which need to be satisfied to qualify for PUD development stage approval. The criteria, along with responses, are shown below: (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. The City has entered into a development agreement with Medtronic and have agreed to all terms, conditions and provisions regarding the sale of the property. (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. The City authorized an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) in 2004 to examine the potential impacts and the maximum development potential of the site. The transportation impacts were reviewed and a mitigation plan prepared in response. The transportation improvements have received funding and the preparations are already underway to allow for a completion date of September 2007. Access to the site will be gained from two controlled (signalized) intersections on County Road J. Freeway access can be achieved at either Highway 10 or 35W. Other than the fire access road, there will be no vehicle access internal to the site. (3) A sufficient amount of usable open space is provided. There will be significant open space preserved on the site. In addition to the 25 acres of ponds and wetlands, much of the east side of the project area will be maintain as a natural area with seasonally cut meadows, prairie grasses and wildflowers. Altogether, including the Blaine land, 60 of the 85 acres, or 71% or the land area, is greenspace. (4) The arrangement of buildings, structures and accessory uses does not unreasonably disturb the privacy or property values of the surrounding residential uses. The only nearby residential areas are those to the south of Highway 10. The buildings will be more than 400 feet from the residential land to the south and southwest, separated by the freeway. The Medtronic development will not adversely impact these residential parcels and will likely serve to enhance property values, if anything. (5) The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding area. The design of the proposed Medtronic building will likely be more extensive than of the surrounding office and industrial buildings. While definitely more significant than the other buildings in the area, the design will not be out of character or inconsistent with the other uses. Medtronic Review September 21, 2005 Page 8 (6) The drainage and utility system plans are submitted to and subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. The drainage and utility system plans are being reviewed by Mounds View’s public works department and will be reviewed by Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik and Associates. In addition, Rice Creek Watershed District engineers will be reviewing the plans and will be making a recommendation to the watershed district’s Board of Commissioner’s regarding the wetland mitigation plans. The City Council will be considering the Wetland Alteration Permit in October. (7) The development schedule insures a logical development of the site which will protect the public interest and conserve land. The site will be developed in three phases—the first phase will include 820,000 square feet of office space in two eight-story buildings connected by skywalks and conference rooms. The parking for phase one will be provided in two areas—a three story ramp of 2100 stalls and a surface lot of 900 stalls. Phases two and three are logically planned for future development as dictated by the needs of Medtronic. (8) The development is in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 1010 and Titles 1200 and 1300 of this Code. Chapter 1010 of the Municipal Code relates to wetlands and wetland zoning. The development impacts a portion of one small wetland which will be mitigated to RCWD standards. Mitigation will also be provided for the relocated judicial ditch, which was identified as a wetland type area by RCWD engineers. Medtronic has applied for a permit consistent with the requirements and standards of Chapter 1010 which the Council will consider in October. Title 1200 refers to subdivisions and is addressed later in this report. Title 1300 relating to Flood Plain management will be addressed by Rice Creek Watershed District and the City’s consulting engineer prior to consideration of the wetland alteration permit. (9) Dwelling unit and accessory use requirements are in compliance with the district provisions in which the development is planned. There are no residential uses associated with this planned unit development. Accessory uses will be allowed and permitted which would be consistent with and supportive of the extensive workforce employed at this site. Accessory uses may include a day care facility, café, restaurant, dining area, education, retail, fitness area and a ballroom to support the primary office and lab space. Snow Storage The design of the Medtronic project on the site provides for numerous areas in which snow may be collected during winter months. The City Forester cautions that landscaping be planted with some forethought as to snow plow routes and snow storage. Medtronic will be responsible for snow removal from the site if the available parking spaces are insufficient to satisfy the daily needs of the facility. Medtronic Review September 21, 2005 Page 9 Municipal Coordination OPUS and Medtronic will be presenting their site plans and preliminary plat to the City of Blaine in October. Blaine will need to approve any redesign of Coral Sea Street and 82 Lane NE as they are Blaine streets. Blaine has been supportive of the Medtronic development plans and improvements to County Road J and the bridge over 35W. Preliminary Plat Issues The Medtronic CRM preliminary plat was prepared by E. G. RUD & Sons, Inc. The plat proposes five distinct lots in one block. The lot layout is summarized in the table below. Copies of the Medtronic CRM preliminary plat have been provided to the City’s public works department, the City Attorney and Ramsey County. Ramsey County will forward copies of the plat to MnDOT since the property abuts state right of way, even though no access or change is planned to Highway 10 or 35W. Lot Proposed Usage Lot Area (acres / sq. ft.) Lot 1 Phase 1 820,000 sq. ft. 27.77 acres 1,209,626 sq. ft. Lot 2 Phase 2 380,000 sq. ft. 3.17 acres 138,269 sq. ft Lot 3 Phase 3 300,000 sq. ft 2.32 acres 101,117 sq. ft Lot 4 Blaine lots, parking areas 15.83 acres 689,453 sq. ft. Outlot A Wetlands, ponds, mitigations areas 36.17 acres 1,575,752 sq. ft. Total area:85.26 acres 3,714,217 sq. ft While only five lots are shown on the preliminary plat, it is likely the case that a sixth lot will be added which would encompass the first phase parking ramp north of the phase 1 buildings. It may also be the case that after the preliminary plat has been approved, the lot lines and area for lots 2 and 3 may be adjusted on the final plat. Such changes, so long as they do not alter the essential character and nature of the preliminary plat, may be approved. Easements Perimeter drainage and utility easements will be taken with this plat, although the exact dimensions and locations are yet to be determined. It is likely that easements will be taken over all ponds, wetlands and storm water conveyance systems. There are existing easements associated with the Northstar Industrial Park and Northstar Industrial Park 2nd Addition plats that will need to be vacated. There is an easement toward the east end of the Medtronic CRM preliminary plat protecting a Met Council Environmental Services sanitary sewer interceptor, buried thirty feet underground. This will remain unchanged. Medtronic Review September 21, 2005 Page 10 Right of Way No internal road system will be needed with this development. There is however excess right of way shown on the preliminary plat that is proposed for vacation: Ardan Avenue, Edgewood Drive and Jackson Drive. These rights of way were originally platted with the Laport Meadows subdivision from the 1940s yet were never improved. According to the City Charter, excess right of way (as well as any excess easement) is vacated by ordinance. Park Dedication Fees Consistent with Chapter 1202, a park dedication fee would be applicable with this subdivision of land. Normally the City will assess a fee of either five or ten percent of the land value less improvements, as determined by Ramsey County. The 2006 County assessed valuation of the land being subdivided is $7,500,000. Assuming a ten percent dedication, the City would expect to receive $750,000. In this case, the amount of the dedication--$865,000--was agreed upon during the contract negotiations based on the purchase price of the land. The dedication fee will be paid at the time of building permit application. Comprehensive Plan Consistency The division of land as proposed by the preliminary plat would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended by the City Council and approved by the Metropolitan Council. The Future Land use Map designates this land as “Office” which is the use planned with this subdivision. Rezoning With the general concept plans for the Medtronic Planned Unit Development approved, the City must consider a rezoning of the project area from the existing Light Industrial (I-1) designation to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Typically this is done at the development stage of the PUD process consistent with the final Council approval of the site plans. The City Code requires that the Planning Commission examine potential adverse effects associated with a proposed rezoning by addressing five questions. The questions, along with responses, are as follows: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning to PUD would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the City Council recently authorized an amendment to the future land use map from Outdoor Sport Recreation and Passive Open Space to Office. While the current Light Industrial zoning of the site is consistent with the Office designation, the PUD zoning would provide greater flexibility, clustering of buildings, open space preservation and staging of the development along with the added protection of a very specific set of land-use requirements articulated in the PUD document. Medtronic Review September 21, 2005 Page 11 (2) The geographical area involved. The area is located north of Highway 10 and west of Interstate 35W, effectively detached from the rest of the community. A 46-acre wooded natural area is adjacent to the site to the west with developed industrial uses to the north. Nearly sixteen acres of the project area are in the City of Blaine, the rezoning action being considered would not extend into Blaine as Mounds View does not have zoning jurisdiction in other communities. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The current Ramsey County assessed valuation for the project area is set at $7.5 million. Currently the site generates no taxes and does not contribute to County and school district tax collections. After the sale of land, the area would immediately become taxable and it is anticipated the County will establish a valuation in excess of current levels. Taxes would be payable to all taxing jurisdictions on the base value of the land. After the first phase of the project has been constructed, taxes would be paid on the value of the land and the improvements, the value of which will likely exceed $75,000,000. While it is true that Medtronic would receive TIF payments to reimburse them for eligible project costs, the state of Minnesota and the school district will benefit. If the state and the school district benefits, so too does Mounds View. Finally, the new value of the Medtronic project would be figured in to any current and future school district bond levies which will result in lower tax payments to all other property owners. For these and other reasons, the rezoning will not depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. The surrounding area is predominately industrial, with industrial buildings, industrial uses, offices and other accessory industrial features such as outdoor heavy equipment parking and storage, loading docks, shipping and receiving terminals bordered by freeways and a busy county road. The proposed rezoning will allow for a corporate office campus associated with the largest division of Medtronic, its Cardiac Rhythm Management division. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The need has been demonstrated by more than a year of discussions and negotiations between the City and Medtronic, discussions and negotiations between the City and the legislature, between the City and various state agencies and has been expressed in a year of discussion and cooperation between the City and the counties or Ramsey and Anoka, and the cities of Blaine and Shoreview, all of who are supportive of this project. Finally, the need was articulated in resolution and ordinance format by the Mounds View City Council. Medtronic Review September 21, 2005 Page 12 Adverse Effects Summary: Staff would submit that there are no compelling adverse effects associated with this project, and any impacts resulting from the proposed development will be or have been mitigated to the satisfactory approvals of all governing agencies, including, but not limited to, the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Rice Creek Watershed District, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration. Recommendation: Based upon all of the above information and the supporting plans and documentation associated with this request, staff recommends the following actions be considered by the Planning Commission: 1. Medtronic development stage plan recommendation of approval 2. Medtronic CRM preliminary plat recommendation of approval. 3. Recommendation of approval of a rezoning from I-1 to PUD. Staff has prepared a resolution of approval for the above items which is attached to this report as Resolution 815-05. Action may be held over to the next meeting however staff feels the Commission has all of the information it should need in order to make a recommendation on these requests. Finally, I would like to reiterate that the general concept plans have been reviewed and approved by the City Council. That is to suggest that the Council supports the building density, the massing, the height and the ultimate redevelopment of the Bridges golf course. The City Council has authorized the transfer of land to Medtronic and has concluded the negotiations for land acquisition and redevelopment which culminated in a signing of the development agreements on August 31, 2005. The Commission will need to review and consider the development stage plans, the preliminary plat and the rezoning based on city Codes and regulations rather than its support (or lack thereof) of tax increment financing, the sale price or actions conducted by others who do not support the project, which is admittedly difficult but important responsibility for the Planning Commission. If anyone should have questions regarding this report or the plans which you already have in your possession, please do not hesitate to contact me at 763-717-4021. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Development Stage Plans, Date Stamped Sept 9, 2005 (Separate Attachment.) 3. Resolution 815-05 Zoning Map MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 815-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MEDTRONIC DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS, THE MEDTRONIC CRM PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE REZONING OF THE PROJECT AREA FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PLANNING CASES PD2005-002 AND MA2005-02 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 development stage plans; and, WHEREAS, Medtronic, Inc., has submitted an application for a Major Subdivision of the project area to support the requested Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, the land to be developed by Medtronic represents the City’s Bridges Golf Course located north of Highway 10 and west of Interstate 35W at 8390 Coral Sea Street, legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 22, 2005 and at this meeting approved the general concept plans for the Medtronic PUD; 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 Chapter 1120 and Title 1200 of the Mounds View Municipal Code relating to PUDs and subdivisions of land, respectively; and, WHEREAS, The Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the development stage plans and preliminary plat date-stamped September 9, 2005, relative to this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, recognizing that the general concept plans have been approved, makes the following findings of fact related to the Medtronic development stage plans, preliminary plat and rezoning request: 1. The development stage plans are consistent with the approved general concept stage plans. 2. The development stage plans satisfy all codes, requirements and regulations. 3. The Medtronic project is a staged development—no further review will be required of subsequent phases so long as they remain consistent with the approved plans. Resolution 815-05 Page 2 4. An extensive amount of natural areas, wetlands, woods, ponds and open space is preserved in the development area. 5. The City Forester has reviewed and supports the landscape plan as presented. 6. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has consented to the proposed building heights of 140 feet. 7. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. The Medtronic CRM preliminary plat satisfies all requirements of Title 1200 relating to land subdivisions. 9. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will not cause or generate adverse effects to adjoining property owners of the community in general. 10. As addressed in the Bridges Office Park AUAR, a mitigation plan was adopted to address transportation and traffic deficiencies resulting from the development with preparations for the improvements already underway. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission takes the following actions relating to the Medtronic CRM development: 1. Recommendation of approval of the development stage plans date-stamped September 9, 2005 for the Medtronic PUD subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant or applicant’s representatives shall prepare and submit a detailed light plan with exterior fixture specifications, light standard heights and a photometric analysis. b. The plans shall be revised to show areas set aside for snow storage. c. Accessory storage structures, while none are shown on the plan, shall be allowed consistent with provisions of Title 1000 and Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. d. The applicant shall request and obtain approval for all proposed work to occur in the City of Blaine. e. The applicant shall execute a development agreement relating to the project and a PUD Narrative document outlining the specific requirements associated with the project. 2. Recommendation of approval of the Medtronic CRM preliminary plat date-stamped September 9, 2005 and associated easement and right of way vacations subject to the following conditions: a. The preliminary plat shall be revised to show a perimeter drainage and utility easement and easements over all ponds, wetlands, mitigation areas and drainage conveyances. b. Legal descriptions shall be prepared by the applicant or applicant’s representative for those areas proposed to be vacated. c. The applicant shall seek and gain approval from the City of Blaine regarding the preliminary plat, specifically, proposed Lot 4. Resolution 815-05 Page 3 d. The applicant shall execute a subdivision agreement as required by Section 1202.05 of the Subdivisions regulations. The terms of such an agreement may be incorporated within the development agreement referred to in condition 1e above. 3. Recommendation of approval of the proposed rezoning of the project area within the City of Mounds View from Light Industrial to Planned Unit Development as 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 21st day of September, 2005. _______________________________________ Jean Miller, Vice Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) EXHIBIT A – Medtronic PUD Legal Description Parcel 1: 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 2: 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 3: 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 4: 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. (These legal descriptions do not include parcels in Blaine.)