Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-2004 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 2004 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: May 19, 2004 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Planning Case VR2004-006 Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding a Variance Request for a Non-Conforming Curb Cut at 7090 Silver Lake Road Applicant: Michel Mourad 6. Planning Case VR2004-001 Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding a Variance Request for a Reduction of Spacing Requirements and to Exceed the Maximum Height for Billboards Applicant: Clear Channel Outdoor 7. Planning Cases VR2004-007 and CU2004-002 Public Hearing and Discussion Regarding a Variance for the Width of a Garage and a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Garage Applicant: Mari Scotch 8. Planning Case AV2004-001 Consideration of Resolution 765-04 Granting Final Approval for an Administrative Variance APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 9. Next Planning Commission Meeting: July 21, 2004 10. Adjourn to Agenda Session. AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: June 16, 2004 2. Staff Reports A. Housing Replacement Program Review B. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Review 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Item No: 6 Meeting Date: July 7, 2004 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance for Billboard Height and Reduced Spacing between Billboards Introduction: Clear Channel Outdoor is requesting variances to increase the height of the billboards proposed for the Bridges Golf Course from 35 feet to 45 feet, plus a variance to reduce the separation between four of the six billboards from 750 feet to 600 and 500 feet. A map is attached which shows the billboard locations and the proposed spacing. The basis for the height request stems from the height of the existing tree cover and the desire to retain the trees rather than remove them. As for the reduction in separation between billboards, the variance will preserve a natural area between the golf course and Sysco also in an effort to avoid significant tree lose. Background: On March 27, 2000, the City accepted a proposal submitted by Eller Media (now Clear Channel Outdoor) and adopted a resolution approving an Interim Use Permit for six billboards at the Bridges Golf Course. The graphic below represents the original design selected by the Council. Clear Channel Variance Request July 7, 2004 Page 2 Discussion: At the February 2004 City Council worksession meeting, Clear Channel presented the City Council with an alternative design and location plan and informed the Council of the anticipated loss of hundreds of trees associated with the implementation of the billboards. The alternative design was brought forward for Council consideration after it was determined that the original design would be too much of a disruption to course play. In addition, it was pointed out that former golf course management had counted on a nine-hole expansion of the course as the source for the amount of fill needed to create the earthen berms upon which the billboards would be located. There are no plans for an expansion of the golf course and the City no longer desires the berm, which would have given the signs the additional ten feet of height currently being requested by variance. The billboard design now supported by the City Council is shown below. Height: Mounds View’s City Code limits the height of a billboard to no more than 35 feet above the grade of the adjacent roadway. There are many trees within and alongside the MnDOT right of way that would block the view of the signs if their height were limited to 35 feet. (Originally, the height of the trees was not considered an issue as the height of the berm had elevated the billboard faces above the tree line.) Because the City is no longer pursuing an expansion of the golf course and is no longer interested in constructing an earthen berm in this area, Clear Channel requests an additional ten feet in height to make up for the loss of the berm. The benefit to the City of the increased height is two-fold: most of the existing trees will be preserved and the taller sign faces become less of a physical and psychological impediment to golf play. To aid the Commission’s review of this component of the request, Clear Channel has submitted graphics illustrating the height differences between 35 feet and 45 feet. The new design incorporates a single pole construction with a brick façade column and brick trim under the sign face. This design minimizes the extent to which the billboard face projects into the golf course. Because the cart paths could be located under the billboard, there would be little disruption to the facility and no need to relocate cart paths. Clear Channel Variance Request July 7, 2004 Page 3 Freeway View * Height: 35 Feet Height: 45 Feet Golf Course View * Height: 35 Feet Height: 45 Feet * While intended to be reasonably accurate, these images are computer generated and generally represent the difference between the two sign heights. Clear Channel Variance Request July 7, 2004 Page 4 Spacing: The City Code requires that billboards be separated by no less than 750 feet as measured from the center of each billboard. This standard is more restrictive than MnDOT standards, which allows separation of no less than 500 feet. The City is no longer entertaining a proposal to expand the golf course by nine holes; as a result, the area between the Sysco and the golf course will remain natural and undisturbed. In an effort to preserve this natural area and to minimize the potential loss of hundreds of trees due to the construction of the billboard and associated service road, the separation between billboards 2 and 3 and billboards 3 and 4 are proposed to be reduced from 750 feet to 600 feet. In addition, the separation between billboards 4 and 5 would be reduced to 500 feet, the minimum spacing allowed by MnDOT. (Refer to Exhibit A.) Variance Considerations: For a variance request to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in Mounds View) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The original billboard applications were predicated on their being a berm upon which the billboards would be located. Without the berm, the signs would be partially obscured by trees, some of which cannot be cut as they are MnDOT property. The City’s decision to not expand the course and not construct the berm has caused a hardship for the applicant. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would create a hardship for the applicant due to the City’s action regarding the berm and course expansion. Lease agreements were signed in good faith with the expectation of the additional height provided by the berm. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. The City has expressed its desire to retain the natural area, preserve trees and protect the play of the course and no longer intends to construct the originally proposed berm. Clear Channel Variance Request July 7, 2004 Page 5 d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. The applicant has demonstrated that the billboard faces would be partially obscured by tree cover without the berm construction, which the City no longer desires. Granting the variance would not appear to be a special privilege given the City’s actions and preferences. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The ten-foot height increase to 45 feet is the minimum variance to ensure the billboard faces will be clearly visible from the adjacent freeways. The reduced separation as shown on the attached Exhibit A is the minimum variance needed to preserve the natural area in between the golf course and Sysco. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Approval of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the City Code. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Recommendation: Open the public hearing and discuss the variance request for the additional ten feet of sign height from 35 feet up to 45 feet and a variance for reduced spacing as illustrated in Exhibit A of Resolution 766-04. Staff supports the approval of the variances in light of the absence of the expansion of the course and the elimination of the berm originally considered along 35W and Highway 10. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Golf Course Layout 5. Resolution 766-04 Zoning Map CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mounds View Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, July 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at Mounds View City Hall, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minnesota, 55112, to consider a request by Clear Channel Outdoor for a variance in reduction of billboard spacing and a variance from the maximum height requirements for billboards at The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course located at 8290 Coral Sea Street. The property identification numbers are as follows: 053023130001 053023210005 053023240059 053023240060 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 Kristin Prososki, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112. The letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Copies of the plans are available for review at City Hall. 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) 717-4022. Kristin Prososki Planning Associate This notice is mailed to property owners within 350 feet of subject property. This notice published in the New Brighton-Mounds View Bulletin June 23, 2004. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 766-04 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUESTED BY CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BILLBOARD HEIGHT AND REDUCE THE MINIMUM BILLBOARD SPACING REQUIREMENTS; PLANNING CASE VR2004-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Clear Channel Outdoor, has applied for a variance to exceed the maximum height and to decrease the minimum separation for the billboards proposed for the Bridges Golf Course in the City of Mounds View; and, WHEREAS, the Property Identification Numbers for the site are as follows: 05-30-23-13-0001 05-30-23-21-0005 05-30-23-24-0059 05-30-23-24-0060 WHEREAS, Section 1008.10, Subd 6 of the Mounds View Municipal Code indicates that the maximum height for a billboard is 35 feet and the minimum distance between billboards is 750 feet; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the following materials relating to this request: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Golf Course Layout 5. Site Plan 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Staff Report Resolution 766-04 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this variance on Wednesday, July 7, 2004; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. The exceptional or extraordinary conditions relating to the variance request are that the City is no longer considering an expansion of its golf course and no longer desires to construct an earthen berm around the periphery of the golf course adjacent to Interstate 35W and Highway 10. 2. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would create a hardship for the applicant in that in the absence of the berm, the existing tree cover would obscure the billboard advertising faces. 3. The applicant has not caused the condition which prompted the variance request. 4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege. 5. The variances requested are the minimum variances which would alleviate the hardship in that they are the minimum necessary to allow for maximum tree preservation and sign face visibility. 6. Granting a variance to allow for increased sign height and decreased sign separation would not be materially detrimental the Code. 7. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby approve the variance requested for a 45-foot maximum sign height and a reduction in the minimum separation between signs as generally illustrated on the attached Exhibit A. Adopted this 7th day of July, 2004. ____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Dir. (SEAL) Exhibit A. The Bridges Of Mounds View Billboard Location and Spacing Map 1 2 3 4 5 6 Distances Between Billboards (in feet): 1 and 2: 750 + 2 and 3: 600 3 and 4: 600 4 and 5: 500 5 and 6: 750 Item No: AS 2 Meeting Date: July 7, 2004 Type of Business: Staff Reports City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review Housing Replacement Program Guidelines and Criteria Introduction: Created in 1995, the Housing Replacement Program is a voluntary program that allows the City to purchase blighted residential properties from willing sellers. Because the City has not used the program for a few years, however, the Planning Commission may be unfamiliar with the purpose, objectives and guidelines of the program. As such, this report will serve as an opportunity to provide that background and to review the guidelines for any necessary revisions or corrections. Discussion: On June 16, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed modification to the Project Plan for the Economic Development Project, approving a resolution that recommended to the City Council adoption of the modifications. One of the components of the modification involved the creation of a map and identification of parcels the City could potential acquire utilizing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) dollars. The parcel list included both commercial and residential properties. Most of the residential properties identified would be potential candidates for the Housing Replacement Program. Purpose: The purpose of the Housing Replacement Program, as stated in the attached program summary, is to reduce the social costs of blight, improve residential neighborhoods and increase the tax base. Objectives: There are three stated objectives for this program—replace deteriorated lower value housing with larger, higher valued housing; eliminate blight; and increase the availability of quality housing for families. Criteria: The home will likely be substandard in some way or exhibit some level of blight. This is defined as follows: 1. Substandard as to condition, property value, size or usage. 2. Obsolete and having a faulty design for block and area in which it is located. 3. Deterioration which has caused blight to other adjoining properties 4. Detrimental to the safety or health of abutting properties in the block. Recommendation: Review the attached program guidelines. If the Commission feels amendments are in order, they would need to be forwarded on to the City Council for consideration and approval. _____________________ Jim Ericson Item No: AS-2B Meeting Date: July 7, 2004 Type of Business: Staff Reports City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Review Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Program Introduction: It was brought to my attention that the Planning Commission could benefit from a brief and general overview of Tax Increment Financing (TIF)—how it works and the intent of the laws associated with TIF. While TIF is not ordinarily an issue the Commission would discuss or debate, having a general understanding of Minnesota’s laws in this area may be beneficial. Unfortunately, the TIF experts will be the first to tell you that TIF laws are difficult to understand and with each passing legislative session, it becomes even more confusing. Because of this and the need for legal compliance, most cities with TIF districts utilize the services of a TIF advisor and/or TIF attorney; someone particularly specialized in this field. Mounds View is no different in this regard. General Overview: As federal funds for urban renewal projects became more restrictive in the 1970s, tax increment financing (TIF) became a popular redevelopment financing tool nationally. Minnesota enacted TIF enabling legislation in 1969 and was one of the first states to do so. Since then, the scope of TIF has gone beyond redevelopment and encompasses general development activities — from affordable housing development to contaminated soil remediation. The most common type of district is a “redevelopment” district. Mounds View’s three TIF districts are redevelopment districts. Tax increment financing is a tool used by local development authorities — usually cities — to fund certain types of development. A city can use or “capture” additional property taxes generated by a new development to pay for certain development costs. As a result, the captured property taxes are not distributed to other taxing jurisdictions, such as the county, city or school district, as would be the case in absence of TIF. The captured property taxes are based upon the difference between the tax capacity following development and the original tax capacity of the property. If the original tax capacity of the property was $10,000, for example, and the tax capacity following improvements to the property was $50,000, the captured net tax capacity would be $40,000. In this example, the property taxes paid on $40,000 could be used to finance improvements to the properties within a TIF district. The TIF statutes impose limits on activities for which tax increments can be spent. Permissible costs covered by TIF include but are not limited to acquisition or demolition of blighted property; street and public parking lot or ramp construction; relocation benefits for occupants of acquired properties; construction or rehabilitation of housing for low- and moderate-income households; planning, engineering and legal services; and construction of agricultural processing projects. TIF Report July 7, 2004 Page 2 Materials Attached: At the risk of overwhelming the Planning Commission with too much information, I’ve attached two publications from the Office of the State Auditor (OSA), the agency charged with TIF oversight and compliance. In addition, an article dated August 19, 2001 from the Star Tribune is included, as is a short article from the MN House of Representatives concerning redevelopment districts. Last, I have attached a map of the City which indicates the locations of the City’s three TIF Districts. While the TIF districts comprise very little of the City’s area, the dollars generated from these three districts can be spent anywhere in the City so long as they are TIF eligible expenses. Uses in Mounds View In Mounds View, the City has used TIF to foster development and redevelopment. From a large scale perspective, TIF helped establish the Mounds View Business Park and TIF notes were authorized for a variety of developments such as Sysco, Building N, CG Hill, Silver Lake Pointe, The Mermaid, ZEP Manufacturing and Multi-Tech. Limited business subsidies have been approved on a case-by-case basis; most recently for demolition assistance associated with the former Amoco Gas Station and before that the former Perkins Restaurant building. TIF dollars have been used to fund various redevelopment studies such as the Highway 10 Redevelopment and Revitalization plan and smaller projects such as the Remodeling Planbooks. TIF dollars support the Housing Replacement Program and also a Business Improvement Loan program. TIF dollars are also used to offset some personnel and administrative costs incurred by the City and EDA and cover the contracts with the TIF advisor and attorney. (This list is of course not meant to be exhaustive, simply a summary of the uses of TIF in Mounds View.) Recommendation: If the Commission has an interest in learning more about TIF as a redevelopment tool, and its specific use in Mounds View, Aaron Backman, the City’s Economic Development Coordinator, and I can provide you with additional information. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Tax Increment Financing: A Discussion with the State Auditor’s Office (Oct 2003) 2. Tax Increment Financing Report (May 1, 2003) 3. The Other Side of TIF -- Star Tribune (August 21, 2001) 4. TIF Redevelopment Districts – House Research Brief (Oct 2003) 5. Mounds View TIF District Map PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 16, 2004 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., June 16, 2004. Chair Stevenson indicated that the first meeting of the month was not held due to the death of Greg Johnson. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Stevenson, Scotch, Hegland, Zwirn and Song Members Absent: Hegland (excused) Also Present: Planner Prososki, Community Development Director Ericson and Economic Development Coordinator Backman ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Review Modification of the Mounds View Economic Development 2 Project _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes a. May 5, 2004 MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Zwirn. To Approve the Planning Commission Minutes for May 5, 2004 as Presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 2 _______________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Review Modification of the Mounds View Economic Development Project Economic Development Coordinator Backman indicated that the City’s TIF Plans are a collection of several documents separated by district and the development plan. He then indicated that Mounds View has three active TIF districts and explained where they are located. Coordinator Backman indicated that in 1994 the EDA consolidated the three development programs and plans into one master plan. The consolidation resulted in one development district (the whole City) with one development project known as the Project Plan. In 2000, budgets for TIF Districts 1, 2, and 3 were modified and statutes require that the Planning Commission review program modifications to determine if they are in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Coordinator Backman indicated that Staff has identified 211 parcels in the City that could be acquired with the City’s TIF funds. He then reviewed the map with the Commission and asked for questions or comments. Commissioner Miller asked how these parcels had been chosen, especially the individual residential parcels. Coordinator Backman indicated that Staff went out and traveled the areas on residential and commercial. He then said that he has worked with Jeremiah Anderson for properties with compliance issues as well as looking at the exterior of the properties. Chair Stevenson asked why Staff did not consider the property south of Johnson’s all the way to Spring Lake Road for a commercial site for that two block area west of Groveland. Coordinator Backman explained that the list may not include all potential parcels but it is what has been noticed to the other governmental entities and it would not be possible to add to it at this time but it could be considered for future updates to the plan. Chair Stevenson indicated he was okay with leaving off Colonial Village Mobile Home Park since that was the one determined most likely not to be redeveloped. Chair Stevenson thanked Staff for the efforts on this program. Commissioner Zwirn asked what kind of criteria was used for residential lots to be included. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff looked at the Housing Replacement Guidelines and there are four criteria to identify a blighted home and that was used Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 3 _______________________________________________________________________ as a guideline. He then said that the homes on the list may not qualify for that program but, from a windshield perspective, these are the properties that Staff felt should be added. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the standards were taken from other communities or if they were arbitrary. Director Ericson indicated the courts have not determined standards and the courts give huge deference to the City when determining blighted property however the City would need something legitimate to base it upon. He then pointed out that if property owners approach the City it gives them the opportunity to sell to the City and clear it for development at market value. He further explained that this is a voluntary program and that is the difference with other cities with targeted acquisition programs. Commissioner Zwirn said he understood the volunteerism of the plan but that for certain houses on larger lots not utilizing the lots he is concerned that a developer could come in with a plan and could potentially force people to sell and develop, even if they do not want to develop. Director Ericson agreed and said he does not think that the City would want to utilize the program in that fashion. Commissioner Miller asked if Staff is expecting feedback from the public on this project. Coordinator Backman indicated the public hearing would be held on June 28, 2004. He then said that the designation does not provide any restrictions or encumbrances to selling the property. Commissioner Zwirn asked for clarification of the repeated addresses and the addresses with 0 in them. Planner Prososki explained that the County has not assigned an address to those properties because it is a vacant lot and that there are a number of them. Commissioner Zwirn asked if this action is being taken as a result of discussions a few weeks ago regarding acquisition of property on Long Lake Road and Highway 10. Coordinator Backman indicated that the process was started well over a year ago and thanked the other Staff for help. He then said that this process began with the settlement reached with the Office of State Auditor, as that office determined that the City needs to identify parcels before purchasing them with TIF dollars. Director Ericson indicated the purchase of 2525 Highway 10 was to come out of special project funds and not TIF funds. He then said that Council had discussed that once this was adopted, if a developer had not come forward the EDA could then acquire the parcel from the City to reimburse the City or the City could have sold it without utilizing TIF dollars. Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 4 _______________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn commented that the presentation at the last meeting indicated TIF dollars would be used. Coordinator Backman indicated that TIF funds would be used long term because there are limited dollars in the special project fund and it was estimated that the fund could support the expenditure for 6 to 12 months but eventually the City would need to sell it or utilize TIF funds. He then said that he has had a good amount of interest from developers on the property. Commissioner Song asked what would happen if other property owners approach the City. Coordinator Backman indicated that there would be activity beyond these parcels and this does not say that economic development would only occur in these parcels. Director Ericson indicated that the Housing Replacement Program offers a second component and that is if a property is underutilized or blighted and they want to stay in the community there is a component where they would enter into an agreement with the owner and the City contributes the amount to demolish the property with the understanding that a bigger and larger home is constructed on the property. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To Approve Resolution 762-04, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project. Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Zwirn) Motion carried. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that he understands the state auditor requiring this process be taken care of but he has some issues with TIF financing and the “shell game” that goes on with it so he does not feel comfortable endorsing it. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: July 7, 2004 ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:33 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 5 _______________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.