Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-2005 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 16, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. October 5, 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. ZC2005-002 Rezoning request from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Applicant: JoAnn Colleen Address: 2617 County Road I B. Rezoning request for Silverview Plaza from B-2 Limited Business to B-3 Highway Business Applicant: Kraus Anderson Address: 2544 County Road 10 6. Other Planning Activity A. None 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. December 21, 2005 at New Brighton City Hall 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. October 19, 2005 2. Staff Reports a. October 24 & November 14, 2005 City Council Meetings b. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion *NOTE LOCATION* NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL 803 Old Highway 8 NW PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 5, 2005 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. October 5, 2005. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch, and Stevenson Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson, Planning Associate Heller, City Attorney Riggs ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Cases MA2005-002 and PD2005-002. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Review, Rezoning and Development Stage Plan Review Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project. 02 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes September 7, 2005. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Scotch. To approve the Minutes of the September 7, 2005 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Review of Commission Roles and Responsibilities. Community Development Director Ericson stated during the last meeting questions were raised regarding the Commission’s responsibilities. He added Scott Riggs, City Attorney, is present tonight to clarify responsibilities and answer any questions. Mr. Riggs handed out a few different pieces of pertinent information. He reviewed the handouts and memorandum indicating the Commission is an advisory body to City Council and reviews items such as zoning and plats and recommends final approval to Council; these items do not include fiscal issues such as TIF. The single exception to this is the requirement for the Planning Commission to determine whether new TIF plans or modifications to existing TIF plans would be consistent with the City’s adopted Comp Plan. Commissioner Hegland stated that about a month ago the Planning Commission had to make a decision regarding a tax increment financing plan. He asked Attorney Riggs whether this was the one exception to which he was referring. Attorney Riggs stated that was correct. Commission Hegland continued, stating that when the plan was before the Commission, he was unsure as to what the Commission’s responsibility was, in that the Commission was simply presented the TIF plan and they had no idea if it satisfied the criteria or not, or what the criteria were by which it should be judged. Attorney Riggs responded by suggesting that the only question that Commission had to answer when presented with the TIF plan, or any TIF plan modification, is whether the project as proposed and the TIF plan that goes with that project fit within the confines of the Comp Plan. Commissioner Scotch stated she disagrees and read some language from Minnesota Statutes. She added if a plan involves economic development why wouldn’t the Commission want to know about dollars. Mr. Riggs replied the comp plan has been adopted and now the Commission is applying it. He added fiscal implications are not there for the Commission to analyze. Commissioner Scotch referenced a book she received at the beginning of her term on the Commission. She added she feels up to this point she has made good decisions, has the right to her own opinion, and in making decisions the whole picture needs to be looked at. Commissioner Zwirn stated sometimes the Commission is not given all the facts. Commissioner Scotch asked why a contract is being signed without a PUD in place. Mr. Riggs replied the developer is going through the development process at this time. He added the City is following the process it has used in the past; there has been no deviation from policy or process. Commissioner Scotch questioned Mr. Riggs’ information. She added she would take the provided information into consideration for the agenda item tonight. Mr. Riggs replied he is Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 _____________________________________________________________________________ providing applicable laws and does not know what has previously been discussed regarding Medtronic. Commissioner Scotch stated since he is the City attorney he should be looking at issues that are before the City. She added many citizens feel Council did not do a good job on the Medtronic project. Commissioner Hegland asked for clarification that the comp plan is what the Commission is gauging projects on. He noted his prior question was if the TIF plan was in compliance with the comp plan, because they did not have that information. Mr. Riggs replied that the TIF plan and the project it would support would simply need to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, reiterating that the Commission is not involved in any of the City’s fiscal activities. Commissioner Stevenson stated he feels Mr. Riggs has clarified a few issues. Commissioner Miller stated the handouts are very useful. Mr. Riggs replied that was the intent. He added he is open to questions in the future. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Cases MA2005-002 and PD2005-002. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Review, Rezoning and Development Stage Plan Review Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project. Commissioner Stevenson asked for clarification regarding one resolution for several items. He added each item is clearly broken down within the resolution. Director Ericson replied resolutions in the past have been broken out; however, for this one it is not necessary because the Commission would be recommending approval or denial to Council as a whole. Commissioner Stevenson asked for a general consensus from the commission on the grouping of the actions into one Resolution and, upon receiving consensus, stated the items will be acted on together. Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, Medtronic, Inc., is requesting approval of the preliminary plat and development stage plans of the Medtronic PUD. The approved development, which has not changed, is a multi-phased project totaling 1,500,000 square feet in four connected, east west oriented, buildings. He reviewed the three different phases in terms of buildings, parking, and square footage. Director Ericson referenced the PUD noting only one wetland in the project area will be impacted. The judicial ditch will be realigned away from the building alongside Highway 10 with a wider, more natural, meandering channel. Two new stormwater ponds will be created and an existing pond expanded to accommodate the run off on site. Director Ericson referenced the preliminary plat noting there are four lots, an outlot and a possible sixth lot which would encompass the first phase parking ramp north of the phase 1 buildings. The City must consider a rezoning of the project area from the existing Light Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 4 _____________________________________________________________________________ Industrial (l-1) designation to Planned Unit Development (PUD), which would be consistent with the comp plan. Director Ericson stated there are no compelling adverse effects associated with this project. He requested the Planning Commission review and consider the development stage plan, the CRM preliminary plat, and approval of a rezoning from I-1 to PUD. He passed out a summary plan for the reconstruction of County Road J, which would handle future expanded traffic. Commissioner Miller referenced the resolution where it states “subject to the following conditions” and asked who checks those. Director Ericson replied either Staff reviews code or it is reflected on the preliminary plat. Commissioner Stevenson asked if on page 1, the first Whereas, does the resolution refer to Stage 1 only (820,000 square feet). Director Ericson replied it should reflect the 1.5 million square feet instead of just the first phase and will be amended. He added if there are no changes to the site plan as presented tonight, Medtronic would not need to come back for further approval for phase 2 and phase 3. Commissioner Stevenson suggested on page 2, item 10, a map should be included to show traffic and timing. He also asked if traffic improvements to County Road J is set for September 2007, noting if the state pulls the improvement money County Road J could not handle the traffic. Director Ericson replied Staff can address this in the resolution, as a requirement, that transportation requirements have been completed. He suggested it be added to the resolution on page 3, item 4. Commissioner Scotch asked if County Road J coincides with phase 1. Director Ericson replied improvements to County Road J should be completed before phase 1 is done so when Medtronic opens the transportation system will have been completed. Commissioner Miller asked what is the time frame for improvements on County Road J. Director Ericson replied he understands the consultant is on track and improvements should be done by September 2007, providing no delays are encountered. Commissioner Hull asked why Medtronic has a PUD instead of just staying with the I-1 designation. Director Ericson replied the primary reason is that it offers flexibility on what can be granted on the site; a PUD district allows for clustering of buildings to preserve green space. Commissioner Scotch asked what is directly across the road from phase 1. Director Ericson replied directly south is open space, on the south side, approximately 400 feet away is housing, then SYSCO to the west and other industrial and office properties to the north. Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated there are no buildings like the proposed in the City. He noted he could understand if the PUD was 15 years ago but the City is at the end of developing. He stated it looks like a gateway into the upper north area. He commended the Commission on their concern and detailed discussion regarding this issue. Commissioner Stevenson replied the PUD allows this type of building structure and the desire is to preserve green space and natural areas. Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 5 _____________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland stated during the last meeting there was concerns with the cost of adding utilities under Highway 10 and the issue of bringing on another well that is currently not in working order. He added if the proposed cost estimate to provide utilities to the site is lower what is the City’s recourse. Director Ericson replied the utility lines under Highway 10 were proposed in early City plans. He added Council is going to authorize a feasibility report to get a true cost of providing utilities to the site. Engineers estimated the cost at $800,000 which would be shared between Medtronic and the City according to provisions in the development agreement. Commissioner Stevenson stated no matter if the utilities go under Highway 10, or what is found in the feasibility study, this will not make a difference to the resolution this evening. Director Ericson replied that is correct. Commissioner Stevenson asked if the City needs well 4 to supply adequate water supply to the buildings. Greg Lee, Public Works, replied no, bringing well 4 back on line is not contingent upon Medtronic. He referenced a report from 1978 indicating a recommendation to bring well 4 back on line and a 2001 City feasibility report with the same recommendation. Commissioner Scotch asked why it is recommended to bring the well back on line. Mr. Lee replied the well would add more depth and safety to the water system, such as if another well went off line. Commissioner Hegland asked how much excess capacity is there. Mr. Lee replied during peak demands it is barely met; however, they could take a higher capped well off peak control, use a back up generator, or put well 4 back on line. He added the Public Works Department will be presenting a proposal regarding this at a later date. Commissioner Miller asked what it takes to bring well 4 back on line. Mr. Lee replied approximately $450,000 and a pipe to the treatment line. Commissioner Scotch asked how are the pipes, noting some may be old and in need of replacement in the future. Mr. Lee replied the City is trying to initiate a rehabilitation program and regenerate the systems. Commissioner Hegland asked how much does this project impact the system presently. Mr. Lee replied based on current data from the AUAR, at full build out, about 120,000 gallons a day or 8.6 percent additional water supply. He added the City was always planning to use this land for industrial purposes and from a public works perspective it fits the comp plan well. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the City is in financial trouble. He also asked if Council was intimately involved in negotiating with Medtronic. Director Ericson replied the City is not in financial trouble and the Council was intimately involved in the process. Commissioner Zwirn stated he is shocked by the poor position Staff and the Council and legal representatives have put the taxpayers. He noted he has the rights and responsibility to question Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 _____________________________________________________________________________ all aspects of this project. He stated he has several unresolved questions pertaining to the purchase agreement. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 16, subd. 2, stating phase 1 will be developed with TIF money, and phases 2 and 3 will not be started until there are TIF districts set up and money has been allocated. He added on page 8, subd. F, it states using TIF is essential under the agreement, which again states no phase 2 or 3 unless the City and governing authorities provide TIF. Director Ericson replied there is nothing to prevent Medtronic from starting phase 2 or 3 with or without TIF dollars and they have the ability to approach Council with this request. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 17, subd. 3, stating if the developer desires they can make changes in construction plans, submit them for City approval, and they shall be deemed approved unless rejected. He added the onus is on the City to respond within 15 days; otherwise they are construed to be approved. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement stating there are missing definitions in Sections E and H. He added on page 19, first paragraph, reimbursement of funds if the developer fails to meet obligations for phases 2 and 3 are not specifically outlined. He noted on page 20, TIF funds would be used for the acquisition of property in Blaine, and stated he thought this was not supposed to be available. Director Ericson replied according to the agreement, expenses incurred in Mounds View would be reimbursed first, before any reimbursements would be provided for expenses in Blaine. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 21, paragraph F, stating the developer understands they will repay the City for qualified costs and any others should stand alone. He asked about the 25-year TIF plan. Director Ericson replied if the developer requests additional financial services a new development agreement is necessary. He added he cannot address the 25-year TIF plan. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 23, section C, stating the goals for the City are to maintain minimum improvements for at least five years. Director Ericson replied this may be a legal requirement and is not part of the issue the Commission is addressing tonight. Commissioner Zwirn referenced the purchase agreement, page 29, paragraph A, stating prior to the certificate of completion the developer needs to perform obligations to minimum improvements under the agreement. He asked if this says once phases 1, 2, and 3 are completed, if the developer chooses they have the right to sublease the development of property as long as they maintain ownership. Director Ericson replied he is unsure without taking a moment to review the agreement. Commissioner Stevenson stated the purchase agreement issues are not relevant to the issue before the Commission tonight. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Hegland. To approve Resolution 815-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Preliminary Plat Review, Rezoning and Development Stage Plan Mounds View Planning Commission October 5, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 _____________________________________________________________________________ Review Associated with the Medtronic CRM Project as amended; Planning Cases No. MA2005- 002 and PD2005-002. Commissioner Stevenson asked for a consensus to waive the reading of the resolution. The Commission agreed to have Staff read the resolution. Director Ericson read the resolution, noting the amendments to include, page 1, the first Whereas, 820,000 will be changed to 1,500,000; page 2, item 9 “of” is changed to “or”; page 2, item 10, Exhibit B, transportation improvements, will be added; page 2, item F, will be added to outline that transportation improvements noted in Exhibit B will be completed before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Ayes – 5 Nays – 2 (Zwirn, Scotch) Motion carried. Commissioner Zwirn and Commissioner Scotch indicated their positions are noted above. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Next Planning Commission Meeting: October 19, 2005 at New Brighton City Hall ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:30 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. Item No: A Meeting Date: November 16, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Request to Rezone the Property at 2617 County Road I from R-1, Single Family to R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential Planning Case ZC2005-002 Introduction: The applicant is requesting to rezone her property from R-1, Single Family Residential, to R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential. Background: Earlier this year, the applicant constructed an expansion to her home located at 2617 County Road I. The expansion provided additional living space for a family member, however the scope of work was modified after plan approval, which resulted in the construction of an additional dwelling unit. After being notified that the construction was in violation of the City Code, the applicant applied for the rezoning. Discussion: According to the City Code, in order to approve a rezoning request, it must be determined that the requested zoning designation (1) would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and (2) would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or adversely affect any adjoining properties. Regarding the first criteria, the request would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, which designates this area as single family detached residential. There are, however, existing twin homes within a block to the east of the subject property, which are designated appropriately on the Comprehensive Plan map. If the rezoning were approved, the Comprehensive Plan map would need to be amended to reflect the more intensive use. Regarding the second criteria, that the rezoning not be detrimental to the neighborhood, staff believes that the introduction of a more intensive zoning on this property may not be inappropriate given the surrounding land uses. B-3 and B-4 zoning districts are located directly across the street to the south from the subject property. A short distance to the east on County Road I are other properties zoned R-2, as shown on the attached zoning map. Also, County Road I is a busy road where higher density residential already exists. The property owner resides in the main home and plans to use the second unit above the garage as a rental unit. Recommendation After seeking any public input and discussing this request with the property owner, the Planning Commission may act on Resolution 819-05, a resolution recommending approval of a rezoning from R-1 to R-2 for 2617 County Road I. If the Planning Commission believes that R-2 is inappropriate for this parcel, Resolution 819-05 may also be acted on for recommending denial of a rezoning from R-1 to R-2 for 2617 County Road I. Heidi Heller Planning Associate 763-717-4022 Attachments: 1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Ariel View Map 5. Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Certificate of Survey 8. Resolution ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential County Rd I Properties within 350 feet of 2617 County Road I that have been notified for the public hearing. Aerial View (2003) 2617 County Rd I Mounds View Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Photographic Documentation 2617 County Road I Photographic Documentation Exterior stairs leading to 2nd floor unit entrance ← Second housing unit constructed above garage ← MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 819-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A REZONING OF 2617 COUNTY ROAD I, FROM R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO R-2, SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; PLANNING CASE NO. ZC05-002 WHEREAS, JoAnn Colleen, owner of the property located at 2617 County Road I has applied to rezone the property from R-1, Single Family Residential, to R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: SPRING LAKE PARK HILL VIEW PART OF LOT 48 LYING WESTERLY OF A LINE RUN NORTHERLY FROM A POINT ON SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 48 DISTANT 107 FT EASTERLY OF SOUTHWEST CORNER TO A POINT ON NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 48 DISTANT 107 FT EASTERLY OF NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 48 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Ariel View Map 5. Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Certificate of Survey 8. Resolution WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on Wednesday, November 16, 2005; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, the Planning Commission is to consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed rezoning and shall make a finding of fact related to its review of the request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the possible adverse effects of this rezoning as required by the Mounds View Zoning Code: 1. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the property proposed to be rezoned is designated Low Density Residential. The surrounding area along County Road APPROVAL I, however, does consist of several twin homes and properties zoned R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential, along with commercial uses across the street. 2. The Property is located on County Road I, a heavily traveled arterial. Single and Two Family (R-2) residential, as proposed in this rezoning, would not be inappropriate given the higher volumes of traffic and the existence of similar R- 2 uses, and commercial uses, surrounding the property. 3. The proposed rezoning would have little impact on the neighborhood, as other properties within a block have developed as twin homes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings of fact, the information and documents regarding the rezoning proposal, the report drafted by staff and the testimony of the applicant, and in consideration of the public testimony given at the public hearing, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the rezoning request as shown on the attached Certificate of Survey. 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 16th day of November, 2005. _________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson Attest: ___________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (Seal) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 819-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF A REZONING OF 2617 COUNTY ROAD I, FROM R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO R-2, SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; PLANNING CASE NO. ZC05-002 WHEREAS, JoAnn Colleen, owner of the property located at 2617 County Road I has applied to rezone the property from R-1, Single Family Residential, to R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: SPRING LAKE PARK HILL VIEW PART OF LOT 48 LYING WESTERLY OF A LINE RUN NORTHERLY FROM A POINT ON SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 48 DISTANT 107 FT EASTERLY OF SOUTHWEST CORNER TO A POINT ON NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 48 DISTANT 107 FT EASTERLY OF NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 48 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 9. Application 10. Location Map 11. Zoning Map 12. Ariel View Map 13. Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map 14. Photographic Documentation 15. Certificate of Survey 16. Resolution WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on Wednesday, November 16, 2005; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, the Planning Commission is to consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed rezoning and shall make a finding of fact related to its review of the request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the possible adverse effects of this rezoning as required by the Mounds View Zoning Code: DENIAL 1. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the property proposed to be rezoned is designated Low Density Residential. The surrounding area is also primarily Low Density Residential. 2. The proposed rezoning would have an impact on the neighborhood by allowing higher density housing surrounded by single family homes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings of fact, the information and documents regarding the rezoning proposal, the report drafted by staff and the testimony of the applicant, and in consideration of the public testimony given at the public hearing, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of the rezoning request as shown on the attached Certificate of Survey. 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 16th day of November, 2005. _________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson Attest: ___________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (Seal) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: November 16, 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: Consideration of a Request to Rezone the Property at 2544–2574 County Road 10 from B-2, Limited Business, to B-3, Highway Business; Planning Case ZC2005-003 Introduction: The applicant, Kraus-Anderson Realty Company, on behalf of the property owner M & E Realty Company, is requesting to rezone their property at 2544–2574 County Road 10, commonly known as Silverview Plaza, from B-2, Limited Business, to B-3, Highway Business. Background: Silverview Plaza opened in 1988, and at some point that same year, a rezoning was requested from B-2 to B-3, similar to the current request. That request was denied to due concerns regarding inadequate parking availability. Despite this, for many years the facility has experienced full or nearly full occupancy. The current zoning designation, B-2, allows for less intense commercial and service oriented businesses such as Laundromats, locksmiths, delicatessens, financial offices, florists, sporting goods and hardware to name a few. The property owner has requested to rezone the property to B-3, which would allow for all uses within the B-2 district plus more intense commercial uses such as restaurants, auto parts and auto repair, motel or hotels and gas stations. The present tenant mix at Silverview Plaza include a niche fruit arrangement vendor, a pizza delivery service, a school, a Chiropractic office, a hair salon and. Currently, forty-five percent of the retail area is vacant. Discussion: According to the City Code, in order to approve a rezoning request, it must be determined that the requested zoning designation would (1) be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and (2) not be detrimental to the neighborhood or adversely affect any adjoining properties. Regarding the first criteria, the request would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, which designates this area as “Community Commercial”, the same designation provided for Moundsview Square. The existing and requested zoning designations are consistent within a Community Commercial guided area. As to the second criteria, however, the request may not conform to the subjective adverse effects test, which will be explored in greater detail on the next page. Silverview Plaza Report Nov 16, 2005 Page 2 Adverse Effects Test To assess whether a proposed rezoning is appropriate or not, many factors should be considered, some of which are explicitly articulated in the Code. The first benchmark may be the area in which the subject property is located and the zoning designations of surrounding uses. A rezoning to a more intensive designation may not be inappropriate if the surrounding uses already bear a more intense designation. In the present case, Silverview Plaza is bordered on three sides by roadways so properties beyond those adjacent to the site will be examined. To the northwest of Silverview Plaza is SuperAmerica, a property which is zoned B-3, Highway Business. Almost directly west, adjacent to SA, is Mounds View Gables, a 20- unit residential facility for mobility-impaired adults operated by the National Handicap Housing Institute. The facility is zoned R-4, High Density Residential. To the south and southwest of the Silverview Plaza is Silver Lake Woods Townhome Association, developed at about the same time as Silverview Plaza. Silver Lake Woods is zoned R-4, High Density Residential. To the southeast of Silverview Plaza is the Ramsey County Branch Library. Its lot is also designated B-2, Limited Business. Adjacent to the Library further southeast, is Wildwood manor, a senior residential facility zoned R-4. To the north of Silverview Plaza, across County Road 10, is Moundsview Square, the City’s largest retail center and most intensely zoned commercial property at B-4, Regional Business. From this review, a zoning amendment to B-3 would not seem inappropriate. Other factors to explore would include the potential traffic impacts as well as the potential increased demand for parking that more intensive uses might create. Traffic (vehicle trips in and out) from the site is presently minimal, due in part to the vacancies as well as because the largest tenant (Calvin Academy) essentially generates traffic volume only twice a day— during times of child drop off and pick up. At full capacity, traffic circulation at Silverview Plaza becomes more problematic as there is no direct access out to County Road 10 and only one right-in access which is shared with SuperAmerica. Access to the site may also be gained through SuperAmerica or from Mounds View Drive to the west or Silverview Drive to the south. A more intensive zoning designation may exacerbate the circulation difficulties. Finally, concerning parking, the applicant indicates that there are presently 172 parking stalls to serve the facility. As with the traffic flow, presently parking is not an issue due to the tenant mix (or lack thereof.) There is 34,500 square feet of leaseable space in Silverview Plaza, which equates to a parking ratio of 1 stall per 200 square feet of leased space. Since not all tenant space is public, a more realistic present parking ratio is likely to be about 1 space per 175 square feet. In comparison, general retail requires parking at the rate of 1 space per 100 square feet of retail space plus one space per employee. Because of the fluctuations of tenants and the diversity of demands for even the uses within a B-2 designation, shopping centers and multi-tenant strip malls are often parked to accommodate a worst-case scenario, usually resulting in a sea of unused asphalt 360 days of the year. Many communities, encouraged by watershed districts and environmental concerns, are trending away from excessive parking ratios. For example, many communities nation-wide utilize a generic ratio of 1 space per 200 square feet of leased space, or expressed differently, 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of space, recognizing that individual demands tend to average out. The applicant will indicate that aside from the fact that they believe to Silverview Plaza Report Nov 16, 2005 Page 2 be adequately parked to accommodate the requested zoning, parking at multi-tenant strip centers typically “self correct”. If a tenant has a high demand for parking, that tenant will likely not lease at a location where parking is already in short supply. Similarly, the leasing agent for a property would not likely recruit a tenant that would demand more parking than that available. Staff would generally agree regarding the self-policing aspect of tenant parking demands. Public Feedback Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of Silverview Plaza alerting them to this proposed rezoning and inviting them to attend the Planning Commission’s meeting on the matter. We have received two letters thus far from residents which are included in your report. (Any letters received subsequent to delivering the packet will be provided at the meeting.) Both residents expressed concern in response to the proposed rezoning, citing issues such as traffic, noise, pedestrian safety, limited parking availability, uncertainly over the potential tenants, all of which are valid concerns to the residents who live directly south of Silverview Plaza. Summary For the Commission to support the requested rezoning, it must find that the request would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not cause or tend to cause or create adverse impacts to the surrounding properties. In the first case, it has already been established that the request would in fact be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As for the second prong, the adverse impact test, it may or may not comply. The residents who expressed their concerns in writing also list traffic and parking among their concerns, as did staff. The applicant had indicated perhaps a willingness to conduct a traffic study to determine the present flow of traffic, upon which a traffic model could be prepared to ascertain traffic flow at full occupancy with uses that may be permitted under the B-3 designation. Keep in mind that certain specific B-3 uses such as a gas station, fast food establishment, car wash or an auto repair facility would all necessitate conditional use permits. These businesses which typically generate higher traffic demands or may tend to generate noise or other impacts would likely not meet the threshold of CUP approval. Recommendation After seeking any public input and discussing this request with the applicant, the Planning Commission may determine that the evidence presented does not support a recommendation of rezoning approval. If that is the case, the Commission may act on Resolution 820-05, a resolution recommending denial of the requested rezoning from B-2 to B-3. If the Planning Commission is unsure and would desire additional information such as the referenced traffic study, the request may be tabled subject to the applicant’s agreement to conduct such a study. (Reluctance or unwillingness on the part of the applicant to conduct such a study should cause the Commission to recommend denial.) If the Commission is satisfied that the parking is adequate and that the conditional use permit provisions offer adequate protection against any potential adverse effects, a resolution recommending approval would be prepared for your action on December 21, 2005. Silverview Plaza Report Nov 16, 2005 Page 3 ________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director 763-717-4021 Attachments: 1. Application 2. Applicant’s Statement 3. Applicant’s Parking Code Research 4. Zoning Map 5. Location Map 6. Aerial Map 7. Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map 8. Photographic Documentation 9. Resolution 820-05 KRAUS-ANDERSON ® REALTY COMPANY Development • Leasing • Management 11/1/05 Dear Mr. Ericson: As we have discussed, Kraus-Anderson Realty Company, on behalf of M&E Realty Co., is seeking the re-zoning of Silver View Plaza located at 2544-2574 County Road 10 in Mounds View, MN. The property is currently zoned B- 2, Limited Business District and we are requesting the zoning to be changed to B-3, Highway Business District. The new zoning will allow for greater leasing opportunities and increased traffic for the exciting tenants. Kraus-Anderson Leasing has had great difficultly leasing Silver View Plaza with the current zoning restrictions. Several parties have shown interest, but because of one reason or another, their businesses did not comply with the B-2, limited business District. All of the following uses are allowed under the B-3, Highway Business District, but have been turned away due to the current zoning restrictions: Hardware Store – Repairs of lawnmowers is not allowed Motorcycle Sales and Repair – Repairs not allowed Auto Parts Store – Brake Drum repairs not allowed Small Asian Restaurant – Restaurants not allowed Auto Repair – Repairs not allowed Amusement Arcade – Not allowed Small Church – Religious Institutions not allowed American Legion/Veterans Club – Private Clubs not allowed Having had several tenants leave to newer more accessible properties and not being able to get the current vacancies leased has caused the building to become 45% vacant in the last year and a half. This has caused difficulties for the current tenants; sales are down and tenants are complaining that the center is not generating enough traffic for their business. The re-zoning of Silver View Plaza to the B-3, Highway Business District will give us more opportunities to fully lease the property, producing greater traffic for the existing/surrounding tenants and making it a destination shopping center benefiting the entire neighborhood. Please assist us with the re-zoning of this property. Let me know if you need additional information or have any question. I can be reached at 952-948-9432. Sincerely, Kraus-Anderson Realty Company Michael M. Gross Property Manager 4210 West Old Shakopee Road • Bloomington, MN 55437-2995 952-881-8166 • Fax: 952-881-8114 • Watts: 1-800-399-4220 e-mail: karealty@usinternet.com • www.krausanderson.com ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Silverview Plaza * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Silver View Plaza Rezoning Kraus-Anderson, Planning Case No. ZC2005-003 DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. SOURCES: Ramsey County (September 29, 2005), The Lawrence Group;September 29, 2005 for County parcel and property records data; January 2005 for commercial and residential data; April 8, 2003 for color aerial DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. SOURCES: Ramsey County (September 29, 2005), The Lawrence Group;September 29, 2005 for County parcel and property records data; January 2005 for commercial and residential data; April 8, 2003 for color aerial Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Silver View Park Moundsview Square Scotland Green Apartments Library SILVERVIEW PLAZA COUNTY ROAD H2 * PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF MEETING LOCATION * CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mounds View Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at the New Brighton City Hall, 803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, Minnesota, 55112 to consider a request by Kraus Anderson Realty Company to rezone the property located at 2544 County Road 10, commonly known as Silver View Plaza, from B-2, Limited Business, to B-3, Highway Business. The property is legally know as: Tract C, Registered Land Survey 414 Ramsey County, Minnesota The current zoning designation allows for less intense commercial and service oriented businesses such as Laundromats, locksmiths, delicatessens, financial offices, florists, sporting goods and hardware to name a few. The property owner has requested to rezone the property to B-3, which would allow for all uses within the B-2 district plus more intense commercial uses such as restaurants, auto parts and auto repair, motel or hotels and gas stations. A complete listing of the uses allowed by district can be found on the City’s website, located at http://www.ci.mounds- view.mn.us. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to this matter may be heard at this meeting. If you are unable to attend the meeting but wish to comment, you may submit a letter to Jim Ericson, 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. The letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. If you have any questions regarding this meeting or if you want to make an appointment to review the plans, please contact me at (763) 717-4021. Jim Ericson Community Development Director This notice is mailed to property owners within 350 feet of subject property. This notice published in the New Brighton-Mounds View Bulletin November 9, 2005. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 820-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF A REQUEST FROM KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY COMPANY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT 2544-2574 COUNTY ROAD 10 FROM B-2, LIMITED BUSINESS, TO B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS; PLANNING CASE NO. ZC05-003 WHEREAS, Kraus-Anderson Realty Company, representing property owner M & E Realty Company, has requested to rezone the property located at 2544 – 2574 County Road 10 from B-2. limited Business, to B-3, Highway Business; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: Tract C, Registered land Survey No. 414 Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Application 2. Applicant’s Letter and Supporting Research 3. Zoning Map 4. Location Map 5. Aerial Map 6. Public Meeting Notice 7. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map 8. Correspondence from Affected Property Owners 9. Resolution 820-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting regarding this request on Wednesday, November 16, 2005; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125 of the Mounds View Zoning Code, the Planning Commission is to consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed rezoning and shall make a finding of fact related to its review of the request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the possible adverse effects of this rezoning as required by the Mounds View Zoning Code: Resolution 820-05 Page 2 1. A rezoning of the property from B-2 to B-3 would adversely impact the adjacent residential properties with additional noise, additional traffic and additional parking as a result of the more intensive commercial businesses that could locate in the facility. 2. The Property does not have adequate access to support the more intense commercial uses. 3. The Property does not have sufficient parking stalls available to meet the demands of the more intense commercial uses that would be permitted as a result of the requested rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the above findings, the information and documents presented by staff and the concerns raised by area residents and testimony provided at the public meeting, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of the requested rezoning from B-2 to B-3. NOW, THEREFORE, 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 16th day of November, 2005. _________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson Attest: ___________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (Seal)