Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-28-11-WS lt ,-AR EN HILLS Approved: January 9, 2012 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS,MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING NOVEMBER 28,2011 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING REGULAR MEETING ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the City Council Work Session meeting at 8:58 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes,Nick Tamble and Ed Werner. Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Patrick Klaers; Public Works Director Terry Maurer; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; City Planner Meagan Beekman; Community Development Intern Mei-ling Anderson; and Deputy Clerk Rebecca Brazys. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Work Session agenda was approved as a part of the preceding Regular Meeting agenda. 2. AGENDA ITEMS A. Zoning Amendments Discussion 1. Expansion of Nonconforming Structures Discussion City Planner Beekman explained that at the February 22, 2011, joint work session the City Council and the Planning Commission discussed several possible zoning code amendments. One such discussion item was the allowance of certain types of expansions of nonconforming structures. At present, the City Code allows for the repair, replacement, improvement, and maintenance, but not the expansion, of nonconforming uses and structures. While this regulation functions well for the vast majority of commercial uses in the City, it can make small improvements to nonconforming single-family homes difficult, because any expansion requires a variance. Applications such as these make up the majority of the variance applications that the City processes. It is possible for the City to adopt changes to the Zoning Code, similar to the ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 28, 2011 2 Front Porch Ordinance, which would create circumstances where certain types of development could occur without the need for a variance. City Planner Beekman stated that one of the most common issues that arise when residents call to inquire about home improvements is that their houses are already considered legally nonconforming;they were constructed during a time when setbacks were not as great as they are now, and any expansion of the house is not allowed without a variance. For example, many homes constructed prior to 1970 or so, which include nearly all of the homes in the southwest corner of the City, were constructed with 30-foot front yard setbacks; however, the City Code now requires a 40-foot front yard setback. Similarly, homes constructed with five-foot side yard setbacks in the R-1 District now have a ten-foot minimum setback. The City does not allow expansions within existing setbacks of nonconforming houses; therefore, these homes cannot be expanded without a variance. Because these are not unique situations in the City, many of these situations are not clear candidates for variances. Residents can choose to submit a variance application, which takes between 60 and 90 days to process, or may choose to forego the improvement to avoid the variance process all together. City Planner Beekman explained that some cities already have provisions that allow some flexibility through an administrative review. For example, Roseville,New Brighton, Minnetonka, and Burnsville all allow additions to nonconforming structures up to their existing setbacks under certain circumstances. City Planner Beekman further stated that the Planning Commission discussed this item at their November 9, 2011, work session. Comments made at that meeting have been incorporated into the black-lined version of the ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended that staff bring this item to the Council for discussion, and spoke favorably of the proposed revisions. City Planner Beekman then reviewed aerial photos of some properties in the City that are currently nonconforming to illustrate the types of issues that arise for certain home owners. She also pointed out that this proposed amendment addresses legal nonconforming setback restrictions only. City Planner Beekman stated that staff is seeking direction on how to proceed, whether this revision is necessary, and comment on how the language might be improved. Councilmember Holden questioned if a resident applies for a building permit but a variance is required, is the cost greater than it would be for just the permit. City Planner Beekman responded that the cost would be greater and explained that the fee for a variance is $300.00. Councilmember Holmes stated that the section of the code stating "the roof of the proposed addition is properly proportioned and integrated with the roof of the dwelling" is a little vague and she questioned who would decide if the proposed roof is properly proportioned. City Planner Beekman suggested that the wording be changed to "the roof of the proposed addition is architecturally consistent with the roof of the dwelling." ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 28, 2011 3 Council decided to further discuss the language when it is presented to the Council at a regular meeting. After some discussion, Council consensus was to direct staff to proceed with the proposed amendment as presented. City Planner Beekman commented that this amendment will be presented to the Planning Commission who will make a recommendation to the Council. B. Staff Updates Stadium Proposal City Administrator Klaers stated there will be a Senate committee meeting at the State Capitol at 9:00 a.m. Tuesday, November 29. He stated that he, Community Development Director Hutmacher, Councilmember Holden, and Mayor Grant will attend. City Administrator Klaers also announced that he and Community Development Director Hutmacher have an afternoon meeting on Tuesday, November 29, with Representative Morrie Lanning. Proposed Use for the former Holiday Inn site City Administrator Klaers stated that at the last Council Work Session there was a discussion regarding the old Holiday Inn site and a proposal for Salvation Army transitional housing for 130 men at that location. The direction from Council was to have the Salvation Army make a presentation at a future work session. However, some Councilmembers stated they were opposed to this proposed use and considering that the proposal would require a four-fifths vote for approval,he questioned whether the Council wants to have the presentation. Councilmember Tamble stated he would like to see some other opportunities come forward for that site before giving staff and Council time to the Salvation Army proposal. Mayor Grant commented that he would not vote in favor of the Salvation Army proposal. Councilmember Holmes commented that she had discussed the Salvation Army proposal with some of the City's residents and they were not opposed and thought that the men should be given a chance to rehabilitate. She also stated that she had hoped to hear the Salvation Army presentation to get more details about the proposal as well as feedback from the Sheriffs Department. She added that if the rest of the Council does not wish to hear the presentation then she would defer to the majority. Councilmember Tamble expressed concern that this type of use would cause an uneasy feeling in the community. After further discussion, the Council consensus was that this proposal does not fit in the City's vision for the B-2 District. US 10/Highway 96 Municipal Consent Public Works Director Maurer stated that the US 10/Highway 96 project is operating under the old noise law with regards to the noise wall being requested by residents and the new noise wall ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 28, 2011 4 law does not come into play. Another issue is that the noise analysis was driven by the fact that the access is being changed on US 10 and such an analysis is focused on the footprint of the project which involves only Lakeshore Place and impacts only five or six homes. The analysis stops before the vacant lots and does not include properties south of those lots. He stated the law is clear regarding vacant lots under the old law; there has to be buildings on the lots to be included in the analysis. Under the new law, there has to at least be a building permit issued. He further stated that this area was looked at in March 2008 when SEH did a noise analysis. At that time there were two noise receptors on Lakeshore Place which showed that the AM and PM noise was approximately 70 decibels. After the project was built, they estimate the increase in noise was between 1.5 and 2.8 decibels. According to noise experts, in order for an increase in noise to be detectable, that increase would have to be at least 3.0 decibels. Also in 2008, a cost effective analysis at that time for a 20-foot high wall, 870 feet long and a 10-foot high wall was done. The 20-foot wall was determined to be $5,839 per decibel and the 10-foot wall was $10,875 per decibel. Public Works Director Maurer explained that in 2010 Ramsey County hired Bonestroo to do the Environmental Assessment for the US 10/Highway 96 grade separation. Bonestroo hired Jacobs Engineering to do the noise analysis. Jacobs put in five model receptacles on Lakeshore Place. The decibels at these locations ranged from 64.6 to 67.5 and the anticipated increase after construction was 2.5 to 4.6 decibels. They then prepared an analysis of a 900-foot wall in the same area with a varying height of 10 feet, 15 feet, and 20 feet. The 20-foot high wall was over $5,000 a decibel, the 15-foot wall came out at$4,700 per decibel, and the 10-foot wall was $7,600 per decibel. In order to make the 15-foot wall cost effective, the decibel benefit would have to increase from 43 to 62 without increasing the wall length. Public Works Director Maurer then stated that the County does not have any money for another noise analysis and MnDOT is not interested in pursuing it. He added that Joe Lux, Ramsey County Transportation Manager, went back to the FHWA regional representative and confirmed that the County could not build a noise wall that is not cost effective or outside the footprint of the proj ect. Councilmember Holden asked if the City hired a noise consultant for the Briarknoll neighborhood project. Public Works Director Maurer responded that he does not believe the City hired a consultant; but Chris Chromy reviewed the information gathering for the City. He added that Chris has looked at all the numbers in detail. He explained that he, Chris Chromy and Joe Lux have carefully reviewed the noise wall issue several times over the past months and it just cannot be made to meet the cost-effective criteria. Councilmember Tamble stated that the point he has tried to make is that the City have a final documentation to show the residents that the Council has done all that it can on behalf of the residents' request for a noise wall. He suggested the City focus on what they can get; the increased height on the existing wall and additional plantings. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 28, 2011 5 Public Works Director Maurer stated the County has indicated there is room for plantings and • they would be willing to do plantings. He stated that he will bring Municipal Consent back to the Council at their December 12th meeting. ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Tamble seconded a motion to adiourn. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mayor Grant adjourned the City Council Work Session meeting at 10:04 p.m. owleall'i- Patrick Klaers Javid Grant City Administrator Mayor •