HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP 06-25-2001 •
,-ARZEN HILLS
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL
***MONDAY,JUNE 25,2001, 6:30 P.M.***
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR 6:00 P.M.
***NOTE:MEETING TIME***
PQM.;
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT,TLAN
.y . ror�es E
City Philosophy
To provide a basic and necessary scope of quality services
through the innovative and purposeful use of resources.
7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order
7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Meeting Agenda
7:30 P.M. 3. Approval of Minutes
a. June 11, 2001 Regular Council Meeting, Pavement
Management Plan(PMP)Discussion
b. June 11, 2001 Regular Council Meeting
C. June 18, 2001 Council Worksession
7:40 P.M. 4. Consent Calendar
Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council
and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate
discussion of these items,unless a Council member so requests,in which event,the item will be
removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence
on the agenda.
a. Claims and Payroll
b. Employee Recognition, Adopt Proclamation, Former Planner,
Jennifer Chaput
City of Arden Hills • 4364 West Round Lake Road • Arden Hills,MN • 55112-5794
Phone(651)633-5676 • Fax: (651)633-7839 • www.ei.arden-hills.mn.us
r
r
AGENDA -PAGE TWO •
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL
MONDAY,JUNE 25, 2001, 6:30 P.M.
7:40 P.M. 5. Public Comments
This is an opportunity or citizens to bring to the Councilos attention any items not currently on
the agenda. In addressing the Council,please state your name and address for the record,and
a brief summary of the specific item being addressed to the Council. To allow adequate time
for each person wishing to address the Council,we ask that individuals limit their comments to
three(3)minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting,
or as bench copies,to allow a more timely presentation.
7:45 P.M. 6. Unfinished and New Business
a. Planning Cases
1. Case#01-19, Dunnett, 1543 Oak Avenue, Subdivision
and Consolidation
2. Case#01-08, United Properties, 1987 and 1887
Gateway Boulevard, Planned Unit Development
(PUD)Amendment
3. Case #01-12a, Manufacturers' Services, 4300 West
Round Lake Road, PUD Amendment (Phase Il
Parking)
4. Case#01-10, Arden Towers, 1777 Gateway Boulevard,
Concept PUD
5. Case#01-13, City of Arden Hills, Adult Entertainment
Ordinance Amendment
A. Adopt Ordinance #329
B. Adopt Ordinance Summary #329
6. Council Update, Codification Process, Regulation of
Excavations
b. City Hall Construction Project
1. Cost Update
9:00 P.M. 7. Administrator Comments
9:10 P.M. 8. Council Comments
9:30 P.M. 9. Closed Executive Session
t
f
AGENDA- PAGE THREE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL
MONDAY,JUNE 25, 2001, 6:30 P.M.
*,**CLOSED EXECITIYE MEETING* *
TO DISCUSSPENDING LITIGATION :
M9.30 P M.
(APPROXIMATE TIl1E THE CLOSED SESSION WILL BE HELD t
DIA"TELY FALLOWINGTHE REGULAR BUSINESS OF C4L1NC-1111
om Feterson,League of M><i n to C>fie At#orney)M
x
10:00 P.M. 10. Reconvene
10:00 P.M. 11. Adjourn
The above times may vary depending upon length of issue discussion.
Tentative July Meeting Schedule Tentative Aueust Meeting Schedule
Meeting dates,times and locations are subject to change. Meeting dates,times and locations are subject to change.
Please contact City Hall for the most current schedule. Please contact City Hall for the most current schedule.
July 4 Holiday August 1 (Planning Worksession) 6:30 P.M.
Planning Commission 7:30 P.M.
• July 9 Comprehensive Park Plan 7:00 P.M.
Neighborhood Meeting August 13 Council Meeting 7:30 P.M.
(Presbyterian Church
Of the Way-Shoreview) August 16 Operations&Finance 7:00 P.M.
Committee
July 9 Council Meeting 7:30 P.M.
August 20 Council Worksession 4:45 P.M.
July 10 Comprehensive Park Plan 7:00 p.m.
Neighborhood Meeting August 27 Council Meeting 7:30 P.M.
(Presbyterian Homes-
3220 Lake Johanna Blvd.) August 28 Parks&Recreation 7:00 P.M.
Committee
July 11 Comprehensive Park Plan 7:00 p.m.
Neighborhood Meeting August 29 Communications 7:00 A.M.
(City Hall) Committee
July 12 Comprehensive Park Plan 7:00 p.m.
Neighborhood Meeting
(City Hall)
July 18 (Planning Worksession) 6:30 P.M.
Planning Commission 7:30 P.M.
July 19 Operations&Finance 7:00 P.M.
Committee
July 16 Council Worksession 4:45 P.M.
July 24 Parks&Recreation 7:00 P.M.
Committee
July 25 Communications NOT
Committee SCHEDULED
July 30 Council Meeting 7:30 P.M.
r
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
AGENDA
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN DISCUSSION
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2001
** 6:30 P.M. **
ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL
4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD
1. Review minutes of June 11, 2001 Meeting.
2. Any additional outcomes.
3. Process.
Timeline:
Date Item
June/July 2002 Work Project
February/March 2002 Bid Opening
January 2002 Plans & Specs Approved—Project Ordered
October 2001 Direct Plans & Specs Drafted
August 2001 Council Discussion of Plan
June/July 2001 Neighborhood Meeting
4. Involvement.
■ Formal Notification/Presentation.
■ Open House.
■ Committee/Task Force.
5. Information.
■ Communication.
■ Do we put together a formal plan?
■ How to deal with the request for information without perception that the
program (improvement) has already been planned without resident input?
LP)RAFT
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
JUNE 11, 2001
6:30 P.M.—ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof,Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the special
City Council meeting at 6:37 p.m.
Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Council Members Gregg Larson,Beverly
Aplikowski, Lois Rem, David Grant, City Administrator Joseph Lynch,
City Engineer Greg Brown, Interim Public Works Director Tom Moore.
Absent: None.
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Lynch and Brown handed out maps and 3-ring binders to the City Council for keeping
information and material together regarding the Pavement Management Plan past
discussions as well as any future discussions. Information included in the handouts were
maps of the 5-Year Street Improvement Plan beginning in 1996, the 1999 Re-Rating
Discussion Points for the Arden Hills Street Maintenance Program, the 2000 Pavement
Management Program Public Hearing from January 10, 2000, the 1999 Pavement
Management Program Neighborhood Priority Plan Map, the 1999 Pavement Management
Program Functional Street Classification Map, and the 1998 Storm Sewer District Map.
All of this information was distributed to the City Council Members with a request to
place with their Pavement Management Manual 2001 Workbook.
Mayor Probst began by asking City Administrator Lynch to moderate the discussion
amongst City Council members regarding the Pavement Management Plan. Lynch
referred to the information he has passed out from the 2001 City Council Retreat
regarding the policy making nesting bowl starting with the largest bowl considering the
mission and determining the ends, as well as the information that had been developed
from the 2001 City Council Retreat regarding the street program. Lynch indicated that he
would like the Council to focus on what the outcomes should be of a Pavement
Management Plan to try to narrow the focus down from it's broadest base.
Council agreed on the following items to be registered as outcomes for the Pavement
Management Plan:
■ Safe, sound streets
■ Fairness
• ■ Living within our means
■ Reasonable
■ Resident involvement
■ Assessed costs
DR � FT '-
ARDEN
HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL, PAVEMENT MGMT. —JUNE 11, 2001 2
Council agreed that they have a responsibility to maintain the streets in good order.
Council also agreed that they do not have any particular problem with the current
assessment policy.
Council went on to further discuss pavement management.
Council will discuss the Pavement Management Plan before their next regularly
scheduled meeting on June 25, 2001.
RECESS
At 7:28 p.m., Mayor Probst recessed the meeting and reconvened the regular meeting in
the City Hall Council Chambers.
Dennis Probst Joe Lynch
Mayor City Administrator
s
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA FT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 11, 2001
7:30 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the regular
City Council meeting at 7:36 p.m.
Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant,
Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem.
Absent: None.
Also present were City Administrator, Joe Lynch; City Attorney Jerry Filla; Parks &
Recreation Director, Thomas Moore; and Recording Secretary,Nancy Czajkowski.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a
motion to adopt the agenda for the June 11, 2001, regular City Council meeting.
The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Public Informational Meeting—Lake Johanna Residents
Mr. Lynch explained that Chapter 12 of the City Code deals with lakes and specifically Lake
Johanna. He noted one section requires a zone 250 feet from the shore to be marked by buoys.
He added at present there are no buoys in place.
Mr. Filla noted if the city changes any one of these regulations the changed sections have to be
consistent with state law, but the city is not required to change all of the sections. He added the
city does not have liability because of failure to place buoys, but should not have a regulation
that is not enforced.
The Council asked for public comments. Members of the public raised the following concerns:
unsightliness of the buoys, the designated zone would be unsafe due to the intense concentration
of boats, due to the shallow center of the lake there would be little room left for boats to pass
safely, the designated areas would take away 40% of the usable surface area, and the buoys
would be a danger at night to pontoon boats. A suggestion was made to allow people to mark
their swimming areas.
Discussion followed by the Councilmembers. There was support for requiring repeal of the
section requiring buoys.
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to
direct the City Attorney to revise the language of the ordinance to either repeal the
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— JUNE 11, 2001 2
requirement of buoys or to change the mandatory language to permissive
language to allow the city discretion in deciding whether to require buoys on Lake
Johanna and to return the proposed language to the council at the first July
Council meeting. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. April 30, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting, TCAAP Discussion
B. May 14, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting, TCAAP Discussion
C. May 14, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting
D. May 21, 2001 City Council Worksession
E. May 29, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting, TCAAP Discussion
F. May 29, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting
Councilmember Larson requested the following changes to the May 14, 2001 Regular City
Council Meeting minutes:
1. On page 8, in the last paragraph, in the last sentence, replace "they"with"we".
2. On page 9, in the fourth paragraph from the bottom, delete the third sentence and replace
with "They are the same people sharing the same ideas".
Councilmember Larson requested the following change to the May 21, 2001 City Council
Worksession minutes: on page 2, in the third paragraph from the bottom, delete the second
sentence.
Councilmember Rem requested the following change to the May 14, 2001 Regular City Council
meeting minutes: in the last paragraph before Adjourn, delete the last sentence. She stated that
per the librarians they do not contemplate changing the library hours.
Councilmember Rem requested the following changes to the May 29, 2001 Regular City Council
Meeting minutes:
1. On page 2, in the last paragraph before the motion, replace "changes" with"errors and
dropped words".
2. On page 6, in the first full paragraph, replace "Hadgader" with"Habiger".
3. On page 6, in the third full paragraph, replace "Ortley" with"Oertli".
4. On page 9, in the fifth paragraph from the bottom replace "stated " with "suggested".
Mayor Probst requested the following changes to the May 29, Regular City Council Meeting,
TCAAP Discussion minutes:
1. In the first full paragraph after item 2, replace "is pretty much" with "generally".
11 A 5'
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— JUNE 11, 2001 D ` ;, 11 3
2. On page 8, in the second to the last paragraph, replace "they" with "the city".
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion
to approve the April 30, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting, TCAAP Discussion,
the May 14, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting, TCAAP Discussion, the May 14,
2001 Regular City Council Meeting, the May 21, 2001 City Council Worksession,
the May 29, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting, TCAAP Discussion, and the
May 29, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting minutes as corrected above. The
motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Councilmember Larson stated they should direct the minutes more towards actions and audio
tape their meetings. He noted the tapes should be available.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Claims and Payroll
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to
approve the Consent Calendar and authorize execution of all necessary documents
contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Probst invited those present to come forward and address the Council on any items not
already on the agenda.
Ms. Linda Swanson, 1124 Ingerson Road, noted her appreciation of the city website, but her
concern it does not have the complete agenda. She added the Pavement Management Program
recommendations from the task force should be distributed to the City Council.
No further public comments were made.
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
A. Planning Cases
1. Case#01-20,Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, Schedule Public
Hearing
MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to
schedule the Public Hearing for Planning Case#01-20, Erosion and Sediment
Control Ordinance for July 9, 2001 as recommended by Staff. The motion carried
unanimously (5-0).
2. Public Hearing
A. Case #00-39, Right-of-Way Ordinance (Second Read)
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— JUNE 11, 2001 F 4
B. Adopt Ordinance#326, Amending Chapter 8 of Existing City Code,
Adding Article VI, Section 8-60, Incorporation of Right of Way
Management Regulations
C. Adopt Ordinance#327 Relating to Ordinance#326, Incorporation of
Right-of-Way Management Regulations to the City Code, adding
Chapter 360
Mayor Probst opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. As no one appeared, Mayor Probst closed
the public hearing at 8:57 after discussion by the City Council. Councilmembers expressed
concerns about seeing the all of the changes recommended by staff incorporated in the draft
before presentation to the City Council.
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to
table the adoption of the ordinance until receipt of a fully revised draft. The
motion carried unanimously (5-0).
B. City Hall Construction
1. Monument Sign Revisions
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a
motion to authorize the architect to make the changes to the monument sign as
requested and Rochon to incorporate the changes to the City Hall contract for the
sign in the amount of$9,556.00, as recommended by staff. The motion carried
unanimously (5-0).
C. Arden Hills Tower Discussion
Mr. Lynch explained the City Council would be getting a recommendation from the Planning
Commission on a concept plan approach from Mr. Vaughn on redevelopment of his property,
which would include reconstruction of his tower. He asked for direction from the City Council.
Discussion of Mr. Vaughan's tower followed. Mr. Filla noted the tower does not comply with
the applicable regulations. Councilmembers expressed concern about the length of time this
situation had existed. Some Councilmembers were concerned about putting Mr. Vaughn out of
business. Mr. Lynch expressed the frustration of staff with this property. There was support for
the option of requiring Mr. Vaughn to remove all equipment placed on the tower without
permission by the City. The consensus was that something needed to be done. Mayor Probst
directed staff to consider all suboptions and return to the council with information on the
probable outcomes and costs associated with these suboptions at the July 16, 2001 Worksession
or Council meeting.
1 � Pte' ��*'•-.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL- JUNE 11, 2001 D L R t-�"" �T
5
ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS
Mr. Lynch stated the CPI Guidant issue has been resolved. He noted Ramsey County has not
responded on the Public Works Facility RFP. He added the contractor has offered to sell the
remaining Kasota stone to the City for $11,000.
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion
to authorize purchase of the remaining Kasota stone for an amount not to exceed
$11,000. The motion carried (4-1 Rem).
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Aplikowski noted a request from the Public Works staff to get to know the City
Council members better. She added the Public Works staff have concerns about being consulted
about the condition of the roads and the Pavement Management Program. She suggested
forming a task force to explore standing rules for the City Council to include how they want the
minutes read and other issues.
Mayor Probst noted he received a call from Mr. Mark Kelliher with his concerns about receiving
direction from the City Council for the Operations and Finance Committee. He added that Mr.
Kelliher indicated that committee members would not be upset if they were disbanded in favor of
a task force. Mr. Kelliher indicated they have talents and wish to serve the city in whatever
capacity is needed. Mayor Probst commended staff members for their quick action in response
to the recent ink dye spill.
ADJOURN
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion
to adjourn the meeting at 10:03 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Dennis Probst Joe Lynch
Mayor City Administrator
NOTICE OF MEETINGS
The next Council Meeting will be held Monday, June 25, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. at the Arden Hills
Council chambers.
DRAFT
MEETING MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
TUESDAY,JUNE 18, 2001
4:45 P.M.—CITY HALL, 4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Probst called the meeting to order at 4:55 p.m. Councilmembers present
were Beverly Aplikowski; David Grant; and Gregg Larson. Councilmember Rem
arrived at 4:58 p.m.
Staff present included Parks & Recreation and Interim Public Works Director,
Tom Moore; and Recording Secretary, Sheila Stowell.
City Administrator, Joe Lynch and City Treasurer, Terry Post were both absent
due to illness.
2002 BUDGET DISCUSSION
Mayor Probst noted that representatives from the Ramsey County Sheriffs
Department; the Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department; and the Rice Creek
Watershed District had been invited to attend the July Worksession.
Mayor Probst led the discussion on the 2002 Budget, referencing the staff
memorandum prepared by Mr. Post dated June 14, 2001, which included the 2002
Budget Planning Calendar; and preliminary five-year Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) projections for various departments.
Discussion items included janitorial requirements at the new City Hall facility;
City Council adoption of a use policy for the facility and how that would impact
the 2002 budget; approval of the 2002 Budget calendar; timing of the proposed
joint maintenance facility planning and construction; inclusion of an identified
2002 Pavement Management Plan (PMP) project; implications of the
Comprehensive Park Plan (in process); and levy limits pending with the
legislature still in special session.
Councilmembers were of the consensus that they review more detailed budget
items at the July Worksession, following the special session;
Staff was directed to proceed with intent for a PMP project for 2002; anticipate
late 2002 planning/construction for a joint maintenance facility; work in capital
items to be incurred pending the outcome of the Comprehensive Park Plan; and
incorporate potential personnel costs into the 2002 budget as the reorganization
process continues.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION—JUNE 18, 2001 DRAF
-�
Councilmembers were in agreement that City Administrator Lynch prepare a
specific agenda for the PMP Worksessions scheduled one hour before each
Council meeting, in order to allow Councilmembers to have a goal for each
meeting.
COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN
Discussion was held regarding public notice of the upcoming neighborhood
meetings to receive input on the park plan.
Staff was directed to mail individually addressed, first class letters to all City
residents informing them of the meetings, in addition to the notice in the City
newsletter, cable and website.
FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARYIDAY IN THE PARK EVENT
Mr. Moore provided a summary and overview of the final details and logistics for
the Anniversary event. Mr. Moore informed Councilmembers that Ramsey
County would be unable to provide picnic tables at Tony Schmidt Park due to a
vendor problem.
Mayor Probst directed Mr. Moore to contact Greg Mack, informing him that
Mayor Probst would be contacting Ramsey County Commissioner, Tony Bennett,
for assistance in ensuring that the park would include picnic tables, the necessary
temporary repairs would be made in the one pavilion to make it useable for the
event, and any other needs to make the event successful.
EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE REVIEW
The Council requested further clarification regarding the format presented by staff
for their review of the proposed erosion sediment control ordinance. Discussion
items included page seven (variance section); page nine (which entity has final
jurisdiction); referencing the annual fee review, rather than using specific
numbers for fines and fees within the ordinance; and references to the "handbook"
without a copy being available for reference.
Staff was directed to provide a final draft of the ordinance, rather than a generic
version, by the June 25th Council meeting for review and further discussion,
anticipating formal action at the July 9th meeting.
RIGHT-OF-WAY ORDINANCE REVIEW
The Council once again requested further clarification regarding the format
presented by staff for their review of the proposed right-of-way ordinance.
Discussion items included whether all changes had been incorporated (i.e., City
Attorney, former Planner); confirmation of the 12 month or 36 month restoration
D LK
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION—JUNE 18, 2001 A
period and how that compares to neighboring communities; and excavation and
obstruction permits being combined in one.
Staff was directed to provide a final draft of the ordinance, rather than a generic
version, incorporating all changes as confirmed by a staff memorandum, by the
June 25th Council meeting for review and further discussion, anticipating formal
action at the July 91h meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Moore provided an update for Councilmembers on various public works
projects including, sealcoating; the north water tower project, and potential
change order forthcoming; the Old Highway 10 watermain project; Lift station#8
completion; and the volume of public works related phone contacts.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers expressed concern regarding whether staff was receiving clear
direction from the Council when requesting specific information and final
documents requiring their review. It was their consensus that, when possible,
staff provide final documents for their review, after having thoroughly researched
and reviewed the specific items and providing qualified options by staff
memorandum, allowing Councilmembers to make an informed decision. If staff
found they were unable to meet the projected timetable for action at an upcoming
Council meeting, the item should be removed from that agenda until research and
compilation of facts had been completed, and moved to a future agenda.
Councilmembers also expressed concern regarding their knowledge of the status
of the staff reorganization process.
Further discussion items included timing of the City Hall grand opening
Ceremonies; and scheduling a closed executive session to discuss a pending
litigation issue.
Staff was directed to provide clarification of whether a specific date had been
confirmed with the Minnesota Army National Guard for City Hall grand opening.
Staff was further directed to prepare a memorandum outlining Council options
regarding the Mounds View School District's proposed use of the Minnesota
Department of Transportation property for overflow parking during the remainder
of their construction project, and activation of deferred assessments from the
County Road F project of several years ago.
Discussion was held regarding the upcoming Public Hearing on proposed
modifications and/or enforcement of the Lake Johanna Ordinance.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION—JUNE 18,2001
Prior to the scheduled Public Hearing on July 9, 2001, staff was directed to
provide additional clarification and information regarding the Department of
Natural Resources information previously requested; inclusion of language
drafted by the City Attorney (i.e., which option; modifying language to make it
permissive rather than mandatory OR deletion of language). Again, the City
Council directed staff to provide this information in an advance packet, prior to
action being taken following the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Larson announced that he would be out of town, and unavailable
for meetings, from July 5 - July 22, 2001.
Preliminary discussion was held regarding Arden Towers planning case. The
City's Building Official, Dave Scherbel, will be in attendance at the July
Worksession for further discussion.
Staff and the City Attorney were directed to proceed as previously directed, to
ensure the tower was brought back into compliance.
Mr. Moore was directed to respond to a letter from a young resident regarding a
skateboard park being constructed in the City.
ADJOURN
MOTION: Councilmember Rem moved and Councilmember Aplikowski
seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:02 p.m. The motion
carried unanimously (5-0).
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PAGE 1 OF 3
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT
TO BE APPROVED AT 06/25/01 COUNCIL MEETING
CLAIMS PAID SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING (06/11/01)
....:..::.:.....::::::..........:.:..:::::::::::.::.::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..:...:...,.......:.;;::::.::.....::.............................. ....................
::::iSlwf 111511:;>:::>::;::C 1t4ME T '::>::>.:>::>_:<::::>::»:::::<:::>::::::: :»>::>::>:<:><»>>:<>::::>:;:;::>::>::>:::»
R. A 11E..% ««::«<:::>::>::>::>::>: :«:»:::<;:::>::>::>:: >:::>:::»>::»:«<:::>::>:: 5.....................................................................
19556 06/07/01 Nott Company 1,800.00 Reimburse Legal Fees-Utility&Trail Easements
19557 06/11/01 Scene 50.00 Deposit-50th Anniversary-Entertainment
19558 06/11/01 Fortis Benefits 211.50 June Short Term Disability
19559 06/12/01 MN Department of Revenue 2,052.0 Sales Tax-May 2001
19560 06/13/01 State of MN-Department of Transportation 12 800.00 Decorative Post End-Caps-Noise Wa1135W
19561 1 06/14/01 Rudolph,Chriscell 100.00 Art Fair-Prize-Best of Show
19562 06/14/01 Hiner,Rich 40.00 Art Fair-Prize-First Place
19563 06/14/01 Booth Carol 30.00 Art Fair-Prize-Second Place
19564 06/14/01 Moreland,Helen 30.00 Art Fair-Prize-Third Place
19565 06/14/01 Cole Clarissa 30.00 Art Fair-Prize-Honorable Mention
19566 06/14/01 Crossman,Susan 30.00 Refund-Overpayment Art Fair
19567 06/18/01 Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union 4,770.00 Second June Payroll
19568 06/18/01 ICMA Retirement Trust-457 1,690.89 Second June Payroll
19569 06/19/01 Stanton Group-FSA Department 385.75 Medical&Daycare Reimbursement 6/08
19570 06/19/01 Scene 200.00 50th Anniversary-Final Payment
19571 06/19/01 Kough,Tom 500.00 Band-50th Anniversary-6/23/01
19572 06/19/01 De La Pena,Simon 600.00 Band-50th Anniversary-6/23/01
19573 06/19/01 SNLVB 500.00 Band-50th Anniversary-6/23/01
19574 06/19/01 Powder Puff Clown Club 200.00 Clown-50th Anniversary-6/23/01
19575 06/19/01 Sexton,Dan 400.00 Music-50th Anniversary-6/23/01
19576 06/19/01 St.Paul Clown Club 175.00 Clown-50th Anniversary-6/23/01
19577 06/19/01 Lindell,Wally 275.00 Horse Carriage-50th Anniversary-6/23/01
19578 06/20/01 Allied Audio Services 11135.00 P.A.System-50th Anniversary
19579 06/21/01 Special Events America 8,160.12 50th Anniversary
19580 06/21/01 AA Party&Tent Rental 529.75 Tent Rental-50th Anniversary
Subtotal-Paid Claims 36,695.01
Paid Claims From Above- 36,695.01
Add Unpaid Claims, Page 3 of 3- 230,595.57
Total Accounts Payable Claims
for Council Approval, 06/11/01- 267,290.58
Note: Checks for unpaid claims totaling$50,793.88 were mailed on June 12,2001
after approval at the June 11,2001 Council Meeting. They were check numbers
19488-19555. This sequence corresponds to unpaid temporary numbers TO1-T68.
Check numbers 19486-19487 were used for alignment.
or R
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PAGE 2 OF 3
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT
TO BE APPROVED AT 06/25/01 COUNCIL MEETING
UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER:
XV
TO1 06/26/01 Accurate Press,Inc. 989.39 June Newsletter/Logo/Envelopes
T02 06/26/01 Advantage Paper 405.68 Shop Supplies
T03 06/26/01 AEC Engineering 643.28 Water Tower Improvement
T04 06/26/01 Apple Business Forms 393.95 Utility Statements(New Logo)
T05 06/26/01 Benkovics Deb 40.00 Refund-T-Ball-Coach Discount
T06 06/26/01 Berres,Sandra 42.44 Mileage Reimbursement
T07 06/26/01 Biffs Inc. 444.14 1 Portable Toilets-Parks
T08 06/26/01 Braun Intertec Corporation 679.75 1 Construction Testing-Engineering
T09 06/26/01 Brunn,LuAnn 240.00 June Cleaning-CH
T10 06/26/01 BRW Inc. 13 508.03 Engineering Services-April
TI 1 06/26/01 Certified Laboratories 879.54 Spray Coating/Absorbent
T12 06/26/01 Citv View Electric 44.50 Refund-Electrical Permit#E01-451
T13 06/26/01 Corporate Express 249.40 Office Supplies/Copy Supplies/CopyPaper
T14 06/26/01 Earl F.Anderson 173.98 Pivot Block Set(Hazelnut Pla structure
T15 06/26/01 Electro WatchmanInc. 50.00
Programming Charges
T16 06/26/01 Emergency Apparatus Maintenance 781.22
T17 06/26/01 Fra-Dor Black Dirt&Recycle 108.63T18 06/26/01 Frattallone's Hardware 126.35ses
T19 06/26/01 Glenwood In lewood 39.80 -CH
T20 06/26/01 Go her State One-Call108.80e
T21 06/26/01 Grainger,Inc. 104.97 Shop/Maintenance/Safety Supplies
T22 06/26/01 ICI Dulux Paint Centers 586.71 Field Markin Paint
T23 06/26/01 Independent School District#621 226.72 Bldg Su yr 1/01-6/01 Val.Hills&Island Lake
T24 06/26/01 Ingraham&Assoc.,Inc. 1,002.73 Comp Park&Rec Plan-Ma
T25 06/26/01 I.U.O.E.Local 49 262.00 June Payroll Deductions
T26 06/26/01 Johnson,Greg 35.00 Refund-T-Ball-Coach Discount
T27 06/26/01 Jor enson Jane 55.00 Refund-Grand Slam
T28 06/26/01 Kath Auto Parts 323.15 June Purchases
T29 06/26/01 Kell Promotions Inc. 1,761.60 50th Anniv-Pencils,Balloons Mus Fans
T30 06/26/01 Lake Johanna Vol Fire Department 88,542.19 Fire Protection 7/01-12/31/01
T31 06/26/01 League of MN Cities 180.00 2001 Annual Conference-L.Rem
T32 06/26/01 Lillie Suburban Newspapers 360.00 Employment Ad-Planner
T33 06/26/01 Lynch,Joe 44.41 Expense Reimbursement-Calendars
T34 06/26/01 Massengale,Brandy 50.00 Refund-Tyke Time
T35 06/26/01 McKinney,Mike 15.50 2001 Uniform Purchase
T36 06/26/01 Menards 256.00 Park Shore Property-Fencing Material �A
T37 1 06/26/01 Met Council Environmental Svcs 38,310.67 Jul Sewer CharLae
Total-Unpaid Claims--- 152,065.53
.,dy/wi pe bldcWa j
i
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PAGE 3 OF 3
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT
TO BE APPROVED AT 06/25/01 COUNCIL MEETING
UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER:
T># P :::>
T38 06/26/01 Midwest Asphalt Corporation 1,372.46 Road Repair Material
T39 06/26/01 MCMA 77.00 Membership 2001/2002
T40 06/26/01 MRPA 150.00 2001 Leadership Workshop
T41 06/26/01 Natale's Caffe,Inc. 87.48 Council Worksession 6/18
T42 06/26/01 North Metro Inspection,Inc. 815.10 May Electrical Inspections
T43 06/26/01 North Metro Mayors Association 31.71 NMMA Board Mt 4/18-Probst
T44 06/26/01 North Star Turf Inc. 94.01 Grass Seed 50#
T45 06/26/01 Peterson Fram&Bergman 5,066.90 May Legal Services
T46 06/26/01 Pitney Bowes 265.10 Postage Supplies/Meter Rental
T47 06/26/01 Post Terrance 72.62 Mileage/Expense Reimbursement
T48 06/26/01 Ramsey County 55 812.22 June Law Enforcement
T49 06/26/01 Ranstad 633.60 Office Tem W/E 6/03/01
T50 06/26/01 Roseville City of 6 189.95 5 HP Vectra Computers $1237.99 ea
T51 06/26/01 Sanco Cleaning Supplies 71.56 Insect Repellant Towelettes
T52 06/26/01 Saxe Stephen 49.90 2001 Uniform Purchase
T53 06/26/01 Schifsky,Michael 54.98 2001 Uniform Purchase
T54 06/26/01 Sprint PCS 68.99 Cellular Phones
T55 06/26/01 Standard Spring of Minnea olis 666.12 #16 Tanker Repair
T56 06/26/01 Stanton Group 100.00 FSA Administration Fee-Ma
T57 06/26/01 Star Tribune 821.60 Ad-City Planner-6/17/01
T58 06/26/01 Stowell,Sheila 28.89 Mileage Reimbursement
T59 06/26/01 Target Stores 42.21 Office Supplies
T60 06/26/01 Tessman Seed Company 205.01 Diamond Dry-Parks
T61 06/26/01 TimeSaver Off-Site Secretarial 348.25 Rec Secretary-CC 5/29-PC 6/06
T62 06/26/01 Tru een-Chemlawn 293.94 Weed Control-Lind Park
T63 06/26/01 United Rentals 143.02 Marking Paint
T64 06/26/01 U.S.Tennis Association 102.00 USTA Memberships 17
T65 06/26/01 West Weld 130.56 Shop Supplies
T66 06/26/01 White Bear Rental&Sales 67.56 Tiller-Vegetable Garden
T67 06/26/01 Winnick Supply,Inc. 122.30 Assort Steel-Shop&Equip Maint
T68 06/26/01 Xcel Energy 4,545.00 Ma /June Service
Subtotal, Page 3 of 3- 78,530.04
Pae 2 of 3 Brought Forward- 152,065.53
Total Unpaid Claims-- 230,595.57
.ndyhccau up y bkj,[�i—I
..... .... ....
O C, N 01 :Jwl: C) 't C, 0 C)
0CD 0 0 0 M
N
0 8 CD 0
0 0 0 o o. o. 0 6
0
�o C)
in 10
..... .....
XX
-It r'- C4 C, Aq.: -It 0 CI CD C, c) C) o O r- 00 r-
C
o V1 O�
, r�
r, �c 00 C) 00 O r- 00 0 O r4 -It r- 00 r Vi N o0
00
h0
X V� o0oc�
r- r- m C,
OID C, 't �c
-It 'IT
... ..... .... C4
..... ..... .....
.... ..... ....
..... .....
:V.
o
o
:A o-!
C,
LU C,
R
E U
En
v X
w w0 z
U
0 0 Z
L)
LU u in.
< <
C)
X.
ITM
EFF F 0 flI
..........
.2 u
Z.11
x..
FV
:Z
U..
IL 0 '0"!
ui
z 04
8 8
(71 W) en N 0 r- C) 0 00 r- C11 W) (7, C7, V �D
'o
a. In In �n. r. r! r I:
I- tr) o� 00 m v) rg r- V1 oo o, 7 c� r- m �c w) c,) N r-
00
00 C, r- f- -It r- m m r4 00 r- r, 0 �o
U
w
0
cn
.... .... .....
... .....
......
.... ...
V W) C> C, 0 C:>
M 0 C14 0 0 r4 w C) CD CD 00 0 C)
O 't 0 8 C11 "T 0 LO 0 en 00 �o m �o r, m r4 �o rq en C) 0
0 C,4 C, F 0 10 (31 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 C,
�o C, (3, a, 0, 0, C,
x
... .... ..
X
(U
co
..........
.... ..........
Cd
vii •5U
CO
..........
7R
... .... ....
o -1
X
X Z
0 0
0 z
LLJ
........... -4 en kn .... ..0:
'n tn �o r- cl� rn -e kn �o t— en 110 r4 ::W: :w :
Z c, "1 s C �o
C14 C-4 c�; CD C> C� CD CD <D C) CD
.0
0 0000_ 00000000000000000 : x"
o 00 LL .: -
'nkn
0 C,C> CD C) C> 0 0 C) C> C> C) kn V) tn tn tn A,
.... C,4 rI4 r4 rn rn
N cq CI4
...........
..........
44 :Rr.:
NC14
00 00 00 00 00 w w 00
F—
N
w
M
� N N
d
Q
a• a a
r
O
N
N
O
0
LU
H
Q
O
Y
U
W
U
C C C V
� CU ti
td 6 �
E E �°
w �
Z
w�yYr O 1� O N
I
COD ;RFF r W o°o pOp O N N O
U
O
m �
O
O
Z ono ° c c
p CaoaUav� r� xo; q ,xpwwN �'
Ooc 00
c7N C7,
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a a v v �r � �r � �t v d• � �t � :�:
• U oryo r,4 cryo oryo oN0 oNo cryo oryo N N N N N N ::/�:
00 00 00 00 00 00 >S!+'�
,,-AEN HILLS
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
eo do�0 mo 4716�&
WHEREAS,the City of Arden Hills wishes to recognize the efforts and service of
Jennifer Chaput, City Planner; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Chaput provided these services to the City with professionalism and
dedication, represented the City as part of many ongoing efforts with its citizens, businesses and
other governmental agencies; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Chaput has resigned from her position as City Planner effective May 25, 2001,
in order to accept a position with the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IF HEREBY PROCLAIMED ON THIS 25TH DAY
OF JUNE, 2001 by the city Council of the City of Arden Hills,MN:
The City Council wishes the best to Ms. Chaput,
and expresses their sincere appreciation to her for
her dedicated service to the citizens of Arden
Hills.
DENNIS PROBST, Mayor
BEVERLY APLIKOWSKI, Councilmember DAVID GRANT, Councilmember
GREGG S. LARSON, Councilmember LOIS REM, Councilmember
Citv of Arden Hills • 4364 West Round Lake Road Arden Hills,MN • 55112-5794
Phone(651)633-5676 • Fax: (651)633-7839 www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 13, 2001
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mike Cronin, Interim City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case #01-19, Minor Subdivision and Consolidation
Walter and Dolores Dunnett, 1543 Oak Avenue
Request
The applicant is requesting that the property at 1543 Oak Avenue be subdivided and
consolidated with the property at 3651 Snelling Avenue, described as "Parcel B" on the
survey (Exhibit A).
Background
In the past, the house located at 3651 Snelling Avenue was built across the property line
that it shares with 1543 Oak Avenue. This became an ongoing dispute between
neighbors, recently resolved through legal proceedings. The property owners agreed that
Mary Ann Bown (Exhibit B), property owner of 1543 Oak Avenue, would sell a portion
of her property (legally described on the survey as "Parcel B", 785 square feet) to Walter
and Dolores Dunnett (Exhibit C) at 3651 Snelling Avenue.
Therefore, a minor subdivision is required to split Parcel B from Parcel A (1543 Oak
Avenue) and consolidate Parcel B with the property located at 3651 Snelling Avenue.
The proposed parcel of land will permit the home at 3651 Snelling Avenue to be in
compliance with the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Procedural Requirements & Review
Minor Subdivision
Section 22-12, (e) of the City Code authorizes the division of platted lots of record if the
following conditions are met:
1. The owner of the platted lot to be so divided shall file with the zoning administrator a
survey of the lot to be divided. A survey of the property as it exists for 1543 Oak
Avenue was submitted.
2. The parcels resulting from such division, as depicted in said survey, shall not have an
area, dimensions, or setbacks which are less than the minimum requirements
specified for the zoning district in which the parcels are located in the zoning
ordinance. The minor subdivision creates parcels A and B from the existing 1543
Oak Avenue parcel. The existing house will be located on Parcel A, maintaining the
same structure setbacks and creating a parcel 96,853 square feet in area. Parcel A
meets all of the minimum dimensional requirements for the R-1 District. Parcel B,
785 square feet in area, is not being created for development since it will be
consolidated with the property at 3651 Snelling Avenue as a part of this application.
3. It is determined that the proposed division will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision is located.
The division will not negatively impact neighboring properties.
Consolidation
Section 22-12, (e) of the City Code authorizes the consolidation of platted lots of record
if the following four conditions are met:
1. The owners of such platted lots to be consolidated shall file with the City Planner a
survey or registered land survey of the lots to be consolidated.
A survey of the property as it exists for 1543 Oak Avenue was submitted, showing
Parcel B, the portion that is to be combined with 3651 Snelling Avenue.
2. The parcel resulting from the consolidation shall not have an area, dimensions or
setbacks which are less than the minimum requirements specified for the zoning
district in which the parcel is located in the Zoning Ordinance.
The consolidated parcel will exceed all minimum dimensional criteria for the district
and allow the property at 3651 Snelling Avenue to meet the minimum side yard
setback requirements and become a conforming lot. Currently, the house at 3651
Snelling Avenue is located over the property line and is nonconforming by side yard
setback.
3. It is determined that the proposed consolidation will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the consolidated parcel is
located.
The consolidation will not negatively impact neighboring properties.
Summary: Existing and Combined Lots
R-1 Zoning 1543 Oak Avenue 3651 Snelling Avenue
Requirements
Parcel A Parcel B Existing Parcel Parcel After
(remaining parcel) or consolidation Consolidation
Lot Areas .ft. 14,000 96,853 785 119,300 120,000
Lot Width ft. 95 212 N/A 223 223
Lot Depth ft. 130 465 N/A 520 520
Front Yard Setback ft. 40 77 N/A 190 190
Rear Yard Setback ft. 30 360 N/A 33 33
Side Yard Setback ft. 10/25 15/164 1 N/A 0/70 10/70
2
Deadline for Agency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on May 8,
2001. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City must act on this request by July 7 (60
days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60
day review period. The additional review period would extend to September 5. The City
may with the petitioners consent extend the review period beyond the, September 5, 2001
date.
Lastly, if the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for
the denial at the time it denies the request."
Options
1. Recommends approval as submitted.
2. Recommends approval with conditions.
3. Recommends denial with reasons for denial.
4. Table for additional information.
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of Planning Case #01-19, minor subdivision of 1543 Oak
Avenue for consolidation with 3651 Snelling Avenue for the following reasons and with
the following conditions:
1. The application is able to meet the minimum requirements of Section 22-12, (e) of the
City Code for the final consolidation of the properties;
2. The final consolidation of Parcel B with the property at 3651 Snelling Avenue and the
remaining Parcel A, 1543 Oak Avenue, shall be recorded with Ramsey County within
sixty days of approval from the City Council; and
3. Following recording with Ramsey County, the applicant will provide evidence of
recording to the City of Arden Hills.
Update
Pleased be advised that the Planning Commission, at their June 6, 2001, regular meeting,
recommended approval of the subdivision and consolidation proposed in Planning Case
#01-19.
3
CITY OF AN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 13, 2001
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mike Cronin, Interim City Planner
SUBJECT: Case #01-08, Planned Unit Development Amendment
4300 West Round Lake Road, 1887 & 1987 Gateway Blvd.
Request
The applicant is requesting to amend the Planned Unit Development for the properties at 4300
W. Round Lake Road and 1887 & 1987 Gateway Blvd. to screen the existing refuse containers
on all properties.
Background
This Planning Case was originally reviewed at the April 4, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
and was tabled at that time. The Planning Commission asked that the applicant propose an
alternative form of screening (beyond fencing) so that the dumpsters on the three properties
would be out of view from the roadway. The Planning Commission recommended a more
permanent solution to the applicant, such as permanent walls extending from the buildings.
The applicant has submitted a letter, explaining her proposal, with photographs of the properties
(Exhibit A (map) & Exhibit B). The amended proposal is to increase the amount of landscaping
to screen the loading dock areas (which house numerous dumpsters) from Round Lake Road.
Please refer back to the drawings and staff memorandum provided to you in your April 4, 2001
Planning Commission meeting packet to review this issue. A full Zoning Ordinance review
memorandum, dated March 19, 2001,was provided to you at that time for this case. This
information has not been provided a second time with this packet.
Zoning Review
The Section 6, G, #2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that, "In all districts, all waste materials,
debris, refuse or garbage shall be kept in an enclosed building or be properly screened and
contained in a closed container designed for such purpose so as not to be visible from adjoining
properties or public streets".
The applicant is proposing the following landscaping to properly screen the refuse containers on
the properties:
■ Arden Hills Galeiva'v Center (4300 Round Lake Road): Plant six, seven foot Colorado Spruce
tress along the west side of the loading dock area where the dumpsters and trash compactors
are located. These will be relocated appropriately if Manufacturers' Services chooses to
expand.their parking area, as proposed in.their:Phase II expansion plans.
• Arden Hills Commerce Center (1987 Gateway Boulevard): Construct a 44 x 6 foot diamond
block planter to match the existing retaining walls and plant five, six foot Colorado Spruce
trees to screen the dumpsters from Round Lake Road.
■ Arden Hills Lakeside Center (1887 Gateway Boulevard): There is a permanent wall structure
and a row of trees that already screens this area sufficiently. There is no screening plan
proposed for this property.
The proposed landscaping is a more appropriate solution than the previously proposed fencing to
screen the dumpster areas. Due to the layout of the buildings and loading dock area, it is
extremely difficult to fully screen the loading dock area of the Commerce Center. The current
location of ponds, surface parking and roadways creates some difficulty in finding a way to
adequately screen the loading areas. The applicant has made a good effort to screen the area with
mature trees along the available land that is visible from Round Lake Road. Landscaping is a
more aesthetically pleasing solution to this issue.
Deadline for Agency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the complete application for this request on March 7, 2001.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute,the City must act on this request by May 6, 2001 (60 days),
unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review
period. Staff sent a letter to the applicant, extending the 60-day review period to July 5, 2001.
The City may, with the petitioners' consent, extend the review period beyond the July 5, 2001
date.
Lastly, if the City denies the petitioners' request, "... it must state, in writing, the reasons for the
denial at the time that it denies the request."
Optio
1. Recommend approval as submitted.
2. Recommend approval with conditions.
3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial.
4. Table for additional information.
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of Planning Case#01-08, Planned Unit Development amendment, to
install additional landscaping on 4300 W. Round Lake Road and 1987 Gateway Boulevard to
screen refuse containers with the following conditions:
1. Additional. screening is not required on the property at 1887 Gateway Boulevard (also
managed by United Properties) since the current win- wall and landscaping sufficiently
screens the loading dock area; and
2. The screening, as provided in the plans, must be in place by no later than August 31, 2001 on
all properties.
2
Updat
Planning Commission meeting June 6, 2001. Staff recornmends approval of Planning Case #01-
ID Z:�
08, Planned Unit Development amendment, to install additional landscaping on 4')00 W. Round
Lake Road and 1.987 Gateway Boulevard to screen reftise containers with the following
conditions:
1. The screening on 4300 W. Round Lake Road is to include six 7-foot Colorado Spruce trees
spaced 10 foot on center.
2. A fence is to be constructed to screen the dumpster of sufficient height and length to cover
the dumpster now located in the 4300 parking lot from view of West Round Lake Road.
3. The dumpster on the 4300 property is to be moved as far to the east as practical without
interfering with other equipment.
4. With respect to 1987 Gateway Boulevard, five ten-foot Colorado Spruce trees are to be
planted 20 foot on center.
5. Additional screening was not required on the property at 1887 Gateway Boulevard (also
managed by United Properties) since the current wing wall and landscaping sufficiently
I
screens the loadinc, dock area; and
G. The screening, as provided in the plans, must be in place by no later than August 31, 2001,
on all properties.
r
i
. i
• r
CL
,
I
i
! �` R
,
{ I f i l Ibl
f�,! I I i' j(�t'•c��� � �
om
I I I f i •`\ f
Lal _eKIy
's
C
,s'i' P`°d�Tr?'Potso� j � I..,I.L.•____•__....._•...w-�" f ,./•
-___-- `I s
1 `? ° ( �P
HIN
Y.
............
..............
- - -------- ----------------I --------
uo '
------- ------ -------
\--
u c—
IN
----- --- ------------
L L7
tj
--------------
Derniseci Premises consisting Of app roydmate IV 7 436 Total Square Feet
a
CUR
Q o W g
c
r
L6 0�
e ilU
nhY ri
ti v�
r
,a UO— t I
oca Es
• � -^r Y,�s d31
C
0 Y_
IQ
z
Q
lei
c<a
•
3
Iz-
ft
220 t
f T
--------- '-•-- .-'- - -
IND
i
1 I I
a '
° D t
v 3
I 1
{{ t
8
I 1 !
s
° t
wdery bills Gateway �_ em .. 300 `�,o�en
ie firoia, k.@.�.>-u � L&€ Read,
:P w
�
L
bWN
7,l/
a =e.
INS I
YOU All"t
w
y
>r
try
;
wr
74
t
a
Ardes Hils
Rouund Lak�� Road
I'M
0A
al
0
Al
.........
1-0„ Fa Kgy
..........
IM,
N LIMA
Tes, loin Imi-king ioT zapance zo WAng uOd-,
...........
its
is
MOM/
ME
ard
SAW
to
3
..
s
al4 4, r i\ '30
.
9
6.6
H
Al
Ah
IS WMA AS
L \�
_ kc
r ✓ ,c �` r f
x
'ip
•\ t\yc' s ` .� x '3:<
IN
ram
OF
71
losta4 (N
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 17, 2001
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Mike Cronin, Interim City Planner
SUBJECT: Case#01-12b, Planned Unit Development Amendment (Phase 11)
Manufacturers' Services, 4300 West Round Lake Road
Request
The applicant is requesting to amend the Planned Unit Development for 4300 West Round Lake Road to
expand the parking area by 27 parking spaces along the southwest side of the parcel (Phase II).
Background
Both phases (I and II) of this Planning Case were originally reviewed at the May 2, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Phase I,with conditions, to the
City Council,heard at their meeting on May 29, 2001. The proposed Phase II parking area expansion was
tabled for additional information regarding screening of the loading area and the replacement of trees that
will be removed as a result of the expansion. Also, another planning case, Planning Case#01-08,was
proposing screening for this property(as well as the two neighboring properties) at the same time that this
Case was heard and the Planning Commission wanted to have the opportunity to review both Cases at the
same meeting.
The applicant has submitted an additional drawing for further review, illustrating additional landscaping,
retaining wall locations and a section of the parking lot expansion in Phase II (Exhibit A). Please refer back
to the drawings and staff memorandum provided to you in your May 2, 2001 Planning Commission
meeting packet. A full Zoning Ordinance review memorandum, dated April 23, 2001, was provided to you
at that time for this case. This information has not been provided a second time with this packet.
Zoning Review Summary
The Phase II parking lot expansion proposes an additional 27 parking spaces beyond the 38 spaces
provided in Phase I and the 408 parking spaces that currently exist.
The original PUD requested that this property have no more than 20% office when constructed but it was
built with 31%office with parking to match a 20% office build out, driving the need for additional parking
today. Although the office (31%)to warehouse (69%)ratio is not proposed to change for this site, Phase II
proposes an additional thirty employees in the warehouse. The proposal meets all of the dimensional
requirements of the G-B District, as shown in Table 1, with the exception of landscape lot area.
The property was built with 37% landscape area. The proposed Phase II expansion decreases the landscape
lot area below the Ordinance requirement (35%) to 33%. However, as a trade off, staff would propose that
33% landscape lot area is acceptable due to the willingness of the applicant to increase the number of trees
in locations that will help to better screen the loading dock area which has been an issue in the past.
Table 1:Zoning Review Summar
G-B District Existing Approved PUD Proposed
Requirements Site Data P.C.#96-12 Phase II
Landscape
Lot Area 35% 37% 38% 33%
Caliper Inches(Total) 506" N/A 482" N/A
2"to 3" 253" N/A 154" N/A
3.5"to 4" 152" N/A 75" N/A
4.5"to 5" 101" N/A 1383" N/A
Parking Setbacks ft
Public Street 50 52(closest area) 52 178
Side(North) 20 20 20 N/A
Side(south) 20 61 61 70
Parking Spaces
Total Existing/Proposed 408 248 473
Total Required 431 246 461
Office 1/250 Req'd 200 123 200
Warehouse 1/employee or Req'd 231 123 261
1/1000 sq.ft. (employees) (1/1000) (+30
whichevergreater) employees)
Use
Office 25-50% 31% 20% 31%
(variance)
Warehouse N/A 69% N/A 69%
Deadline for Agency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the complete application for this request on April 4, 2001. Pursuant to
Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 3, 2001 (60 days), unless the City
provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. Staff sent the applicant
a letter extending the additional review period to August 1, 2001. The City may, with the petitioners'
consent, extend the review period beyond the August 1, 2001 date.
Lastly, if the City denies the petitioners' request, "... it must state, in writing, the reasons for the denial at
the time that it denies the request."
Options
1. Recommend approval as submitted.
2. Recommend approval with conditions.
3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial.
4. Table for additional information.
2
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of Planning Case #01-12b, PUD Amendment for Manufacturers' Services to
expand the parking area by 27 spaces in Phase II, with the following conditions:
1. The landscape lot area may be reduced from 35%to 33% due to the addition of plantings to better
screen the parking area from W. Round Lake Road than it does currently;
2. All lighting, additional and relocated, must meet the requirements of the Ordinance and match the
existing fixtures on site;
3. The applicant must contact Rice Creek Watershed District for a permit; and
4. Application for a building permit must be made with the City Building Official.
Updates:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case#01-12, PUD Amendment for
Manufacturers' Services, Phase II, PUD amendment,with the following conditions:
1. The landscape lot area may be reduced from 35%to 33% due to the addition of plantings to better
screen the parking area from West Round Lake Road than it does currently;
2. All lighting, additional and relocated, must meet the requirements of the Ordinance and match the
existing fixtures on site;
3. The applicant must contact Rice Creek Watershed District for a permit; and
4. Application for a building permit must be made with the City Building Official;
5. As part of Phase II, the dumpster on the 4300 property be located as far as possible to the east side of
the parking area, and this site be designated on the Phase II plans.
3
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 13, 2001
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mike Cronin, Interim City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case#01-10 Concept PUD
Arden Towers, 1777 Gateway Boulevard
Request
The applicant is requesting the review of a concept planned unit development for the
property located at 1777 Gateway Boulevard (Exhibit A).
Background
The property at 1777 Gateway Boulevard, commonly referred to as the tower property,
has a lengthy history of applications, which is summarized below.
In Planning Case#81-05, a Special Use Permit was approved on this property for the
construction of a 700 foot antenna tower.
U.S. West made application to install an antenna array on the existing tower in Planning
Case #98-10. The application was approved with the condition that they comply with the
Ehresmann engineering report. After reviewing the Ehresmann report, the Building
Official noted that the report did not include calculations for 1/2" radial ice as required by
the State Building Code and requested it of the applicant. U.S. West submitted a new
report, including this information, stating that the tower did not meet the State
requirement for 1/2" radial ice nor a 69 m.p.h. wind. In a letter to the applicant, dated
November 5, 1999, the Building Official found the structure to be unsafe. The State of
Minnesota agreed with the City's decision to declare the tower an unsafe structure.
On December 17, 1999, the applicant applied for a building permit to construct a new
700 foot tower on the site, to be in compliance with the State Code. On January 6, 2000,
The Building Official denied the building permit application based on the following
Sections of the Zoning Ordinance:
■ Section 6 (I) #3 (b). No antenna or tower shall exceed a height of seventy-five feet
(75').
■ Section 6 (I) #2. Antennas, satellite dish antennas and towers are allowed only as
special accessory uses. They are therefore allowed only on a property containing a
principal use to which the antenna, dish antenna or tower is accessory.
■ Section 6(I) 44 (d). Antennas and towers shall not be allowed nearer to any property
line than the height of the antenna or tower.
■ Section 9 (J). In the event a nonconforming building is hereafter destroyed by any
cause, it shall not be restored or reconstructed except in conformity with the
applicable requirements of this ordinance.
■ Section 11 (A) #1. No building permit or other permit pertaining to the use of land or
buildings shall be issued unless such building is designed and arranged to conform to
the provisions of this ordinance.
The applicant appealed the building permit denial to the Planning Commission in
November, 2000. In December, 2000, the Arden Hills City Council affirmed the decision
of the Building Official to deny a building permit for the reconstruction of a tower on this
site.
At this time, the applicant has submitted an application for a concept PUD for the
construction of two office buildings, structured parking and the reconstruction of a 750
foot tower. The applicant has submitted the following information a wetlands delineation
(Exhibit B) and a booklet of information and plans (Exhibit A).
PUD Concept Plan Procedures & Review
A Concept PUD is a discussion process that allows the applicant to present preliminary
ideas to the City and to receive feedback from the City. No public hearing is held on this
portion of the application so the City can not take action. The Planning Commission
offers comments and suggestions to the applicant, which are then forwarded to the City
Council to do the same. No suggestions made by the Planning Commission or City
Council are binding to future stages of the PUD process.
If the applicant so chooses, they may accept the comments of the City Council and make
formal application for a Master PUD, followed by a Final PUD before construction
occurs on the site.
Special requirements for the Gateway Business District are outlined in Section 5 (M) of
the Zoning Ordinance. The following is a review of those components, summarized in
Table 1 at the end of this section:
1. Allowable Use
In the Gateway Business District, "office"is a permitted principal use. Section 5 (M)
#3 outlines specific requirements for the District for allowable uses. There is a
stipulation by this Section that states that office uses can not occupy less than 25% or
more than 50% of a project's total floor area. The Welsh Developments along
Gateway Boulevard were limited in their office component to 20% (warehouse for the
remaining area) so that more office use could be accommodated on the prominent
corner property(I-694 & 1-3 5W). A Master PUD for that property,proposing 100%
office build-out, was approved earlier this year. This proposal also proposes 100%
office, 50% above the maximum permitted in the G-B District.
A 750 foot antenna tower is also proposed as a use on this property. The antenna is
not accessory to the office use on the property. It is considered a principal use since it
does not support or in any way related to the office use on the property. Section 6 (I)
2
#2 states that antennas are only allowed only, "...on property containing a principal
use to which the antenna, dish antenna or tower is accessory". Therefore, the
proposed antenna is not a permitted principal use in the G-B District.
2. Development Standards
a) Structure Height
The District Requirements Chart of the Zoning Ordinance states a maximum
structure height of 35 feet for the District. However, Section 5 (M) #5 (b)
contradicts this by stating that, "multi-story buildings will be encouraged", "the
use of stepped buildings in encouraged" and"the location of buildings relative to
their heights will consider views"within the Gateway Business District. The
intent of the District is to promote high quality, large scale development and take
full advantage of the site's location. The proposed height of the two office
buildings is 56 feet each, exceeding the 35 foot maximum for the District. The
proposed antenna is 750 feet in height where only a maximum of 75 feet is
permitted, if it is accessory to the primary use on the property.
b) Structure Setbacks
Building setback requirements for the District are as follows: 50 feet from streets
and exterior property lines; 20 feet from side and rear property lines. The front
yard is defined as the part of the lot that abuts a street. The proposed bisects the
site although the property lines do not. The proposed office buildings meet the
setback requirements from both the proposed street and I-694, as shown on the
plans. The proposed accessory structure below the antenna does not meet the
Ordinance requirements since it has been placed in the front yard of the lot. Front
yards in this proposal are considered that property which abuts the proposed street
(on both the North and South side) and the property abutting I-694. Any accessory
structures on this property would have to be located in the side yard of the office
buildings.
c) Structure Exteriors
The Zoning Ordinance requires that exterior wall surfaces in the GB District be
brick, stone, glass or any combination of these. The exterior materials proposed
for the office buildings and accessory structure are prefinished aluminum,brick
and glass. Prefinished aluminum is not a material permitted by the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant has supplied plans and elevations of the proposed office
buildings. Although the accessory structure has been described in the narrative,
there are no plans showing it in elevation which should have been submitted.
d) Traffic
A traffic study for the District was completed by BRW in 1998, analyzing
potential development and still keeping Highway 96 and Round Lake Road within
design capacity. SEH completed another traffic study in 2000, analyzing BRW's
study and taking into consideration the potential development by Chesapeake
Companies in the northeast quadrant of I-35W and I-694. The applicant obtained
another traffic analysis from Biko and Associates, analyzing the traffic impact of
the proposed development of the tower site.
3
The conclusions state that the 96/W. Round Lake Road intersection will operate at
acceptable levels with the implementation of both the Chesapeake and Arden
Towers projects. There would also be less than desirable operations at the 96/I-
35W ramps and it was suggested that signalization should be reviewed for these
areas. Biko suggested that improvements be made to the 96/I-35W bridge and
improvements be made at the 96/10 intersection. Both of these areas are under
review with Ramsey County and the State although they may not be scheduled for
quite some time.
e) Parking
By the Zoning Ordinance, the parking requirement for an office development is 1
parking space for every 250 square feet. There is 265,514 square feet of office
space, requiring 1,062 parking spaces which is satisfied by the proposal.
The parking area includes surface parking and two, two level parking ramps.
There must be a 50 foot landscape setback from all public streets and 20 feet from
other property lines to surface parking areas. The parking ramps are not
considered to be principal structures so they are subject to the accessory structure
or parking setback requirements, since the Zoning Ordinance is unclear on this
issue. The parking setbacks are more stringent and, therefore, the ramps are
evaluated accordingly. The setbacks are not met when measured from the
proposed street at 21 feet when 50 is required.
f) Site Access
There is currently a 66'wide utility easement that runs east to west across the
middle of this property. This easement can not be built upon by a structure so a
road is being proposed over it. The City would need to maintain access to this
easement and it should be,therefore, a public street with a right of way of no less
than 60', as required for local streets. The proposed street is a width of 24 feet.
The only public street that could serve this site, Gateway Boulevard, does not
connect to the west property line of this property.
There is currently an unimproved road serving the tower site, for maintenance of
the tower. Staff is unaware if the applicant has an easement agreement with other
property owners to access the site as no easement is shown on the submitted
plans. The improved portion of the road stops on the west side of the pond for
Apache. The land between existing Gateway Boulevard and the applicant's
property was previously owned by Morris Communications and just recently
acquired by Chesapeake Companies. Therefore, this site does not currently have a
connection to a public street, as is required for development.
g) Public Safety
The proposal discusses the construction of a 750 foot antenna tower(although 700
feet is shown in the plans). Due to the fact that the current antenna has been found
unsafe, the applicant needs to build another tower, although zoning prohibits it.
The Building Official has stated that numerous additional antennas have been
added to the tower without building permits or staff approval, creating this unsafe
condition.
4
The new proposed tower would replace the existing tower. It would be
constructed along side of the existing tower, approximately 20 feet from the base.
When fully constructed, the antennas would be transferred from the old tower to
the new tower and the existing tower would be taken down.
Allied Tower has provided documentation in the submitted booklet on the fall
radius of guyed towers, including ice fall. The report states that there have been a
total of 14 incidents in the USA of tower collapses from weather conditions. From
the information obtained by these falls, it's presumed that a tower of 750 feet in
height would have a fall radius of 199 feet. Towers do not fall over but collapse
on themselves. As for ice fall, the memorandum from Allied Towers states that
ice heavy enough to do damage would fall within a radius of no more than 20 feet
from the tower.
Although the memorandums state that it is safe to place office buildings and
parking structures beneath a tower of this magnitude, staff is still concerned about
the safety and well being of the residents and business people who will be on this
property from day to day. Falling ice from not only the tower but the guyed wires
is of concern, even though the area is proposed to be fenced. Additionally, long
range trail plans include a trail around Round Lake, including a portion through
this property. If development occurs on the property, a pedestrian trail easement
would be requested.
h) Drainage,Wetlands and Floodplain
The application proposes to enhance or restore the wetlands on the property back to
their original state since they have declined as a result of unimproved roads and the
pasteurization of horses on the property for some time. Three detention basins are
provided to collect storm water runoff, designed to NURP standards so that the
storm water is treated prior to discharge. By this proposal, the wetland on the west
side of the property will be eliminated and mitigated at a ratio of 2:1. The
mitigation area will be provided on the east side of the larger wetland and within the
three retention basins constructed on the site. The larger wetland on the eastern
portion of the site will not be disturbed with development. The applicant has
prepared a wetland delineation report (Exhibit B). Approval of the plan, following
City Council approval, will be required by Rice Creek Watershed District.
Table 1: Summar
G-B District Proposed G-B District Proposed
Requirements Buildings Requirements Antenna
Antenna
Use Office permitted 100% Principal use Principal Use-
23%-50%total area Office not permitted
Floor Area Ratio 0.5 0.36 N/A N/A
Min.Lot Size 5 acres 17.09 acres N/A N/A
Min.Building Footprint 20,000 sq.ft. 33,246 N/A N/A
sq.ft.each
Min.Landscape Lot Area 35% 58.4% N/A N/A
Height 35 feet 56 feet each 75 feet 750 feet
5
acces ory use rinci al use
Building Setbacks closest
Streets 50 120 N/A N/A
Exterior Property Lines 50 50 N/A N/A
Interior Property Lines 20 140 N/A N/A
Exterior Materials Brick,stone, Prefmished N/A N/A
glass;metal aluminum,
trim/accessories brick and
lass
Parking Setbacks
Public Streets 50 21 N/A N/A
Side or Rear 20 20 N/A N/A
Parkin
Offices 1/250 sq.ft. 1,062 N/A N/A
spaces
Street Width(ROW) 60 24 N/A N/A
Site Access Must have access to Not Must have Not accessible
public street accessible access to to existing
to existing public street Gateway Blvd.
Gateway
Blvd.
Deadline for Agency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the complete application for this request on May 9, 2001.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue the City must act on this request by July 8, 2001 (60
days),unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day
review period. The additional review period would extend to August 7, 2001. The City
may,with the petitioner's consent, extend the review period beyond the August 7, 2001
date.
Lastly, if the City denies the petitioner's request, "... it must state in writing the reason for
the denial at the time that it denies the request."
Options
1. Recommend approval as submitted.
2. Recommend approval with conditions.
3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial.
4. Table for additional information.
Recommendation
Staff can offer the following preliminary comments on the concept PUD in Planning Case
#01-10:
1. It should be clarified if the proposed antenna tower is 700 feet (per the plans) or 750
feet in height(per the narrative);
2. The antenna tower could not be reconstructed for the following reasons:
■ The tower is currently a nonconforming structure that can not be rebuilt without
conforming with the Zoning Ordinance;
■ The tower is not permitted as a principal use on the property;
6
■ The tower exceeds the maximum allowable height of 75 feet;
■ The tower is nearer to the property line than the height of the tower.
3. No more than 50% of a project's total floor area may be office;
4. The height of the proposed office buildings shall not exceed 35 feet;
5. The conflicting Zoning Ordinance text regarding the maximum height requirement and
percentage of office within the District should be discussed and clarified by the City;
6. The accessory structure for the antenna must be located in the side or rear yard, not the
front, and additional elevation information is needed to properly evaluate the structure;
7. Exterior materials for the office buildings and accessory structure include prefinished
aluminum which is not identified as a permitted material;
8. A pedestrian trail easement by Round Lake would be requested as part of this
development;
9. Surface and ramped parking requires a setback of 50 feet from the proposed and
existing street which is not met;
10. The proposed street should be public with a required right-of-way width of no less than
60 feet for a local street, since it is located on an existing 66 foot public utility
easement;
11. The development of the property requires direct access to Gateway Boulevard which it
currently does not have;
12. Consideration should be made for improvements to the Hwy 96/10 and 96/I-35W
intersections as per the traffic study;
13. Reconstruction of the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Round Lake Road should
be considered to accommodate development; and
14. The applicant must obtain all necessary reviews and permits from Rice Creek
Watershed District.
Notes
If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, then it would
be heard at the Monday, June 25, 2001 regular meeting of the City Council.
Update
Pleased be advised that the Planning Commission, at their June 6, 2001, regular meeting,
indicated they are not in favor of the proposal in Planning Case#01-10.
7
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 21, 2001
TO: Mayor and City Council
i
FROM: Joe Lynch, City Administrato
2�
SUBJECT: Case #01-13, Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Adult Uses)
City of Arden Hills
Background
Ordinance#311, Adult Entertainment Ordinance,was adopted in February, 1999, adding
Chapter 13.6 to the existing City Code. Ordinance#311 was enacted to protect and
provide for the process to determine if an establishment met the criteria for an adult
entertainment business and where such businesses could operate within the City of Arden
Hills.
Jennifer Chaput, City Planner, recommended, along with City Attorney Jerry Filla, that
the city incorporate Ordinance #311 into the Zoning Code, Ordinance #291, of the city.
The reasons for doing this are:
1. Ordinance #311 dealt with land uses, which should be in the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. Adult entertainment establishments require special conditions,
considerations, and requirements, in order to locate in specific areas of the
city.
3. Adult entertainment businesses require a license specifying certain
procedures and process be followed.
All of the above fit with and are a part of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ordinance 4329 incorporates all of Ordinance#311 into the Zoning Ordinance of the city.
Along with a full printing of Ordinance 329, there is a Summary Ordinance, which allows
the city not to have to print the entire Ordinance in the paper. Anyone interested is
directed to City Hall to obtain a full copy of the Ordinance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council adopt Ordinance 4329, incorporating the Adult
Entertainment Ordinance into the Zoning Ordinance#291 of the city. Staff also
recommends the Council directs that a summary of Ordinance 4329 be published.
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 329
ADULT USES
AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 291
On the 25th day of June, 2001, the Arden Hills City Council adopted an
amendment to Ordinance#291, and by affirmative votes pursuant to Minn.
Stat. §412.191, Subd. 4, directed that a summary of the Ordinance be published.
The amendments to Arden Hills Ordinance#291 will become effective the day
following publication of the Ordinance Summary.
A copy of the Ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular
business hours at the office of the City Administrator, 4364 Round Lake Road, Arden
Hills, Minnesota 55112.
ATTEST:
DENNIS PROBST, MAYOR
JOSEPH P. LYNCH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Publication Date: Published on the of 52001.
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 329
ADULT USES
AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 291
329.01 Findings and Recitals
Subd. 1. On March 9, 1998, the City Council enacted an interim ordinance (Ordinance
#305) creating a moratorium on the establishment of adult uses within the City and
directing the City Staff to conduct a study to determine how best to regulate such uses.
The scope of the study was to include, but not be limited to, the following:
A. The particular zoning districts in which adult establishments should be allowed
as either permitted or conditional uses;
B. The density and concentration of adult uses; and,
C. The effect of adult uses on other uses in the surrounding area.
Subd. 2.Upon completion of the study, the matter was to be considered by the Planning
Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council.
The study has been completed and the Planning Commission has reviewed the study and
has passed its recommendation to the City Council for review. The City Council has also
reviewed the staff s study and duly considered the recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
The staff s study contained copies of certain reports specifically including a report which
was prepared by the State Attorney General entitled "Report of the Attorney General's
Working Group on Regulation of Sexually Oriented Businesses", dated June 6, 1989 (the
"Report"). The Report considered evidence from studies conducted in Minneapolis, St.
Paul, and many other cities throughout the country relating to sexually oriented-
businesses.
rientedbusinesses. The City Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council have reviewed the
Report.
The Report, based upon the above referenced studies and the testimony and evidence it
concluded, among other things, " . . . that sexually oriented businesses are associated
with high crime rates and depression of property values. . . ." Prior to the issuance of the
Report, the State Attorney General's Working Group also heard testimony that " . . . the
character of a neighborhood can dramatically change when there is a concentration of
sexually oriented businesses adjacent to residential property." The Report found and
concluded that:
A. Adult uses have an impact on the neighborhoods surrounding them, which is
329- 1
r
distinct from the impact caused by other commercial uses;
B. Residential neighborhoods located within close proximity to adult theaters,
bookstores and other adult uses experience increase crime rates (sex-related
crimes in particular), lowered property values, increased transiency, and
decreased stability of ownership;
C. The adverse impacts which adult uses have on surrounding areas diminish as the
distance from the adult uses increases;
D. Studies of other cities have shown that among the crimes which tend to increase
either within or in the near vicinity of adult uses are rapes, prostitution, child
molestation, indecent exposure and other lewd and lascivious behavior;
E. The City of Phoenix, Arizona study confirmed that the sex crime rate was on the
average 500 percent higher in areas with sexually oriented businesses;
F. Many members of the public perceive areas within which adult uses are located
as less than other areas which do not have such uses;
G. Studies of other cities have shown that the values of both commercial and
residential properties either are diminished or fail to appreciate at the rate of other
comparable properties when located in proximity to adult uses; and
H. The Indianapolis, Indiana study established that professional real estate appraisers
believe that an adult bookstore would have a negative effect on the value of both
residential and commercial properties within a one to three block area of the
store.
Subd. 3. The Arden Hills City Council finds the characteristics of Arden Hills are
substantially similar to those of the cities cited by the Report when considering the
affects of adult uses.
The Arden Hills City Council finds,based upon the Report and the studies cited therein,
that adult uses may have adverse secondary effects upon certain pre-existing land uses
within the City, and that the public health, safety, and general welfare will be promoted
if the City adopts regulations regarding adult uses.
The Arden Hills City Council finds that the adverse secondary effects tend to diminish
if adult uses in the City are regulated by locational and licensing requirements.
Subd. 4. It is not the intent of the City to prohibit adult uses from having a reasonable
opportunity to locate within the City.
The City's current zoning ordinance does not address such adult uses, which have been
found by other municipalities to cause similar adverse secondary effects. Specifically,
the City Council is concerned that the City's zoning ordinance may be inadequate in its
scope and in its restrictions to accomplish the purpose for which it was intended.
329-2
Subd. 5. In addition to the proper zoning classification of such uses, there are a number
of significant planning and land use issues pertaining to the regulation of such uses,
including the following:
A. The particular zoning districts in which such uses should be allowed as either
permitted
or conditional uses.
B. The concentration and density of such uses in the City and its neighborhoods.
C. The effect of such uses on other uses in the surrounding area.
329.02 Definitions
For the purposes of this ordinance, the following terms shall be defined as set forth
below:
Subd. 1. Adult Establishment. Adult Establishment means:
A. Adult Patronage. Any business that is conducted exclusively for the patronage
of adults and that excludes minors from patronage, either by operation of law or
by the owners of the business;
B. Receipts, Floor Area; Types of Merchandise. Any business that (i) derives
25% or more of its gross receipts during any calendar month from, or(ii) devotes
25% or more of its floor area(not including storerooms, stock areas,bathrooms,
basements, or any portion of the business not open to the public) to, items,
merchandise, devices or other materials distinguished or characterized by an
emphasis on material depicting, exposing, describing, discussing, or relating to
Specified Sexual Activities or Specified Anatomical Areas; or
C. Adult Usage. Any business that engages in any Adult Use.
Subd. 2. Adult Uses, Generally. "Adult Uses" include adult book stores, adult motion
picture theaters, adult mini-motion picture theaters, adult massage parlors, adult steam
room/bathhouse/sauna facilities, adult companionship parlors, adult health/sport clubs,
adult cabarets, adult novelty businesses, adult motion picture arcades, adult modeling
studios, adult hotels/motels, adult body painting studios, and other premises, enterprises,
or establishments, businesses or places open to some or all members of the public at or
in which there is an emphasis on the presentation, display, depiction or description of
Specified Sexual Activities or Specified Anatomical Areas which are capable of being
seen,heard, or smelled by members of the public. Activities and matters classified as
obscene as defined by Minnesota Statutes 617.241 are not included as an Adult Use and
are prohibited in the City of Arden Hills. Adult Uses include but are not limited to the
following:
A. Adult Body Painting Studio. An establishment or business which provides the
service of applying paint or other substance, whether transparent or non-
transparent, to or on the body of a patron when such body is wholly or partially
nude in terms of"Specified Anatomical Areas."
329 -3
B. Adult Bookstore. A building or portion of a building used for the barter, rental
or sale of items consisting of printed matter(specifically included,but not limited
to, greeting cards), pictures, slides, records, audio tape, videotape or motion
picture film if such building or portion of a building is not open to the public
generally but only to one or more classes of the public excluding any minor by
reason of age or if a substantial or significant portion of such items are
distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the depiction or description of
Specified Sexual Activities or Specified Anatomical Areas.
C. Adult Cabaret. A building or portion of a building used for providing dancing
or other live entertainment, if such building or portion of a building excludes
minors by virtue of age or if such dancing or other live entertainment is
distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the presentation, display,
depiction or description of Specified Sexual Activities or Specified Anatomical
Areas.
D. Adult Companionship Establishment. A companionship establishment which
excludes minors by reason of age, or which provides the service of engaging in
or listening to conversation, talk or discussion between an employee of the
establishment and a customer, if such service is distinguished or characterized by
an emphasis on Specified Sexual Activities or Specified Anatomical Areas.
E. Adult Conversation/Rap Parlor. A conversation/rap parlor which excludes
minors by reason of age, or which provides the service of engaging in or listening
to conversation, talk or discussion, if such service is distinguished or
characterized by an emphasis on Specified Sexual Activities or Specified
Anatomical Areas.
F. Adult Health/Sport Club. A health/sport club which excludes minors by reason
of age, or if such club is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on
Specified Sexual Activities or Specified Anatomical Areas.
G. Adult Hotel or Motel. Adult hotel or motel means a hotel or motel from which
minors are specifically excluded from patronage by reason of age and wherein
material is presented which is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on
matter depicting, describing or relating to Specified Sexual Activities or
Specified Anatomical Areas.
H. Adult Massage Parlor, Health Club. A massage parlor or health club which
restricts minors by reason of age, or which provides the services of massage, if
such service is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Specified Sexual
Activities or Specified Anatomical Areas.
I. Adult Motion Picture Theater. A building or portion of a building used for
presenting material if such building or portion of a building as a prevailing
practice excludes minors by reason of age, or if such material is distinguished or
characterized by an emphasis on Specified Sexual Activities or Specified
Anatomical Areas for observation by patrons therein.
329-4
J. Adult Modeling Studio. A modeling studio which restricts minors by reason of
age, or whose major business is the provision, to customers, of figure models
who are so provided with the intent of providing sexual stimulation or sexual
gratification to such customers, or who engage in Specified Sexual Activities or
display Specified Anatomical Areas while being observed,painted,painted upon,
sketched, drawn, sculptured, photographed, or otherwise depicted by such
customers.
K. Adult Motion Picture Arcade. Any place to which the public is permitted or
invited wherein coin or slug-operated or electronically, electrically or
mechanically controlled or operated still or motion picture machines,projectors
or other image-producing devices are maintained to show images to five or few
persons per machine at any one time, and where the images so displayed are
distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on depicting or describing
Specified Sexual Activities or Specified Anatomical Areas.
L. Adult Novelty Business. An establishment or business engaged in the sale of
novelty items which:
1. Restricts minors by reason of their age; or
2. Has as its principal activity the sale of devices and other products which:
a. Stimulate human genitals or devices which are designed to create
sexual stimulation or excitement; or,
b. Are otherwise designed to stimulate or arouse sexual excitement
in any manner whatsoever, specifically including,but not limited
to, items such as inflatable dolls or similar devices; or,
C. Is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Specified
Sexual Activities or Specified Anatomical Areas.
M. Adult Sauna. A sauna which excludes minors by reason of age, or which
provides a steam bath or heat bathing room used for the purpose of pleasure,
bathing, relaxation, or reducing utilizing steam or hot air as a cleaning, relaxing
or reducing agent, if the service provided by the sauna is distinguished or
characterized by an emphasis on Specified Sexual Activities or Specified
Anatomical Areas.
N. Adult Steam Room/Bathhouse Facility. A building or portion of building used
for providing a steam bath or heat bathing room used for the purpose of pleasure,
bathing, relaxation, or reducing, utilizing steam or hot air as a cleaning,relaxing
or reducing agent if such building or portion of a building restricts minors by
reason of age or if the service provided by the steam room/bathhouse facility is
distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Specified Sexual Activities or
Specified Anatomical Areas.
329- 5
Subd. 3. Specified Anatomical Areas. "Specified Anatomical Areas" are defined as
follows:
A. Female. Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic
region, buttock, anus, or female breast(s) below a point immediately above the
top of the areola; and,
B. Male. Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and
opaquely covered.
Subd. 4. Specified Sexual Activities. "Specified Sexual Activities" are defined as
follows:
A. General Sexually Oriented Acts Actual or simulated:
1. Sexual intercourse;
2. Oral copulation;
3. Anal intercourse;
4. Oral-anal copulation;
5. Bestiality;
6. Direct physical stimulation of unclothed genitals;
7. Flagellation or torture in the context of a sexual relationship;
8. The use of excretory functions in the context of a sexual relationship; or,
9. Any of the following sexually-oriented acts or conduct: anilingus,
buggery, coprophagy, coprophilia, cunnilingus, fellatio, necrophilia,
pederasty, pedophilia, piquerism, sapphism, zooerasty; or
B. Genitalia. Any clear depiction of human genitals in the state of sexual
stimulation, arousal or tumescence; or
C. Certain Uses and Activities. Use of human or animal ejaculation, sodomy, oral
copulation, coitus, or masturbation; or
D. Touching. Fondling or touching of nude human genitals,pubic region,buttocks,
or female breast; or
E. Nature of Clothing, or Lack Thereof. Situations involving a person or persons,
any of whom are nude, clad in undergarments or in sexually revealing costumes
and who are engaged in activities involving the flagellation, torture, fettering,
binding or other physical restraint of any such person; or
329-6
F. Animals. Erotic or lewd touching, fondling or other sexually-oriented contact
with an animal by a human being; or
G. Irrigation. Human excretion, urination, menstruation, vaginal irrigation.
329.03 Regulation
Subd. 1. Location Restrictions. The restrictions set forth below shall apply to the
location of Adult Establishments.
A. No Adult Establishment shall be operated or maintained except within the B4
zoning district pursuant to a Special Use Permit more fully described in the
Zoning Ordinance(Ordinance#291 and as subsequently amended), Section VIII,
D, 3; and
B. No Adult Establishment shall be operated or maintained within 1000 feet of any
residential district.
The distance requirements provided for in this section shall be measured as set
forth in Section IV, B, of the Zoning Ordinance.
Subd. 2. Sign Requirements. In addition to the requirements of Sign Ordinance
(Ordinance #292, and as subsequently amended), all businesses regulated under this
chapter shall comply with the following sign requirements:
A. All signs shall be wall signs.
B. No merchandise or pictures of the products or entertainment on the premises shall
be displayed in window areas or in any area where they can be viewed from a
public street or sidewalk in front of the building.
C. Window areas shall not be covered or made opaque in any way.
D. No sign shall be placed in any window.
E. A one square foot sign shall be placed on the door of the establishment to state
hours of operation and admittance is limited to adults only.
F. Where any provisions of this section conflict with Sign Ordinance, the provision
that is more stringent shall be applied.
Subd. 3. Physical Lout of Business. Any Adult Establishment having available for
customers,patrons or members, a booth, room or cubicle for the private viewing of any
Specified Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activities must comply with the
following requirements:
A. Each booth, room or cubicle shall be totally accessible to and from aisles and
public areas of the Adult Establishment and shall be unobstructed by any door,
lock or other control type devices.
329-7
B. Every booth,room or cubicle shall meet the following construction requirements:
1. Each booth, room or cubicle shall be separated from adjacent booths,
rooms and cubicles and any non-public areas by a wall.
2. Have at least one side totally open to a public lighted aisle so there is an
unobstructed view at all times of anyone occupying the area.
3. All walls shall be solid and without any openings, extended from the floor
to a height of not less than six feet and be light colored, non-absorbent,
smooth textured and easily cleanable.
4. The floor must be light colored, non-absorbent, smooth textured and
easily cleanable.
5. The lighting level of each booth, room or cubicle when not in use shall
be a minimum of 10 foot candles at all times, as measured from the floor.
C. Only one individual shall occupy a booth, room or cubicle at any time. No
occupant of a booth, room or cubicle shall engage in any type of sexual activity,
cause any bodily discharge or litter while in the booth. No individual shall
damage or deface any portion of the booth.
Subd. 4. License Required; Number of Licenses Available
A. From and after the effective date of this ordinance no Adult Establishment shall
be operated or maintained in the City of Arden Hills without first obtaining a
license to operate issued by the City.
B. A license may be issued for only one Adult Establishment located at a fixed and
certain place. Any person, partnership or corporation which desires to operate
more than one Adult Establishment shall have a separate license for each such
business.
C. No license or interest in a license may be transferred to any person,partnership,
corporation, or other entity.
D. Only one licensed adult establishment may be operated:
1. Within a single building; or,
2. Upon a single tax parcel.
E. No more than three (3) licenses for an Adult Establishment may be issued and
active at any given time.
Subd. 5. Application for License
329- 8
A. Any person, partnership or corporation desiring to secure a license shall make
application to the City Clerk.
B. The application for a license shall be upon a form provided by the City.
C. An applicant shall furnish the following information:
1. Names, addresses and dates of birth of applicant and spouse if any.
2. Written proof that the applicant is at least eighteen years of age.
3. Address of the Adult Establishment to be operated by the applicant.
4. The name of the City, County and State, if any, where the applicant
previously operated an Adult Establishment.
5. Whether the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony involving
sexual conduct,the use or distribution of controlled substances or the use
or distribution of a dangerous weapon. If the answer to the last is yes,
state the jurisdiction in which the offense or offenses occurred. The
applicant may attach any explanation he or she deems appropriate.
6. If the applicant is a corporation (partnership/LLC/trust or other business
entity which is not a natural person), the name of the corporation,the date
and state of incorporation, the name and address of the registered agent
and the name and address of all share holders owning more than five
percent of the stock in said corporation and all officers and directors of
the corporation.
D. Within sixty days of receiving a completed application for a license, the City
Clerk shall submit the application to the City Council for approval or denial.
E. Failure or refusal of the applicant to give any information relative to the
investigation of the application shall constitute grounds for denial of the license.
Subd. 6. Standards for Issuing Licenses
A. To receive a license to operate an Adult Establishment, an applicant must meet
the following standards:
1. The applicant must be eighteen years of age or older.
2. The applicant or his or her spouse has not been denied a similar license
by any other city, county or state within the preceding twelve months or
has not had such a license revoked or suspended within the preceding
twelve months.
3. All current real estate taxes have been paid on the licensed premises.
329- 9
4. The licensed premises meets all the provisions of this Chapter as well as
all building and fire codes.
5. Thea applicant or spouse has not been convicted of an felon involving
pp p Y Y g
moral turpitude, prostitution, obscenity or other crime of a sexual nature
or involving the use or distribution of a controlled substance as defined
by Minnesota laws, or the use or distribution of a dangerous weapon.
The fact that a conviction may be under appeal shall not affect the
disqualification of the applicant.
6. All license and investigation fees required by this Chapter have been paid.
B. For the purposes of this section the term "applicant" shall include an individual,
all persons having a financial interest in a partnership or joint venture, and,in the
case of a corporation(partnership/LLC/trust or other business entity which is not
a natural person), all officers, directors and stockholders required to be named in
the application.
C. All police, fire and building code investigations shall be completed within
twenty-one days after the date the completed application is filed with the City
Clerk. Upon a showing of good cause and reasonable diligence on the part of an
investigator, the City Council may extend the investigation period for a
reasonable time. Any investigation not completed within the allotted time period
shall be deemed to be waived.
Subd. 7. License Fees
A. The annual license fee to operate an Adult Establishment shall be determined by
the City Council by resolution.
B. In addition to the annual license fee, an investigation fee in an amount determined
by the City Council by resolution shall be paid at the time of the initial license
application.
C. All appropriate fees shall be submitted along with the application for a new or
renewal license.
D. If an application is denied, the license fee, but not the investigation fee shall be
refunded to the applicant.
Subd. 8. Display of License. The license shall be displayed in a conspicuous public place
in the Adult Establishment.
Subd. 9. Renewal of License
A. Every license issued pursuant to this chapter shall expire at 12:00 midnight on
December 31 st of each year unless sooner revoked by the City Council, and must
be renewed before operation is allowed in the following year.
329- 10
B. Applications for renewal must be submitted with the annual license fee to the
City Clerk not later than sixty days before the license expires.
• C. Renewal of a license may be issued by the City Clerk unless the Clerk finds cause
for not renewing the license in which case the Clerk shall submit the renewal
application to the City Council prior to the expiration of the license.
D. No license for which application for renewal has been timely made shall be
deemed to expire until the City Council has rendered its decision not to renew a
license. No application for renewal of a license may be denied by the City
Council until after the applicant has received ten days'written notice of a public
hearing before the Council. The applicant may appear with or without counsel
at that public meeting and may present such evidence and witnesses, as he or she
deems appropriate.
Subd. 10. Revocation of License
A. The City Council shall revoke a license for any of the following reasons:
1. Discovery that false or misleading information or data was given on any
initial or renewal application or material facts was omitted from any such
application.
2. The operator or an employee of the operator violates any provisions of
this chapter or any rule or regulation adopted by the Council pursuant to
this Chapter, provided, however, that in the case of a first offense by an
operator where the conduct was solely that of an employee the penalty
shall not exceed a suspension of thirty days if the Council finds that the
operator had no actual or constructive knowledge of such violation and
could not by the exercise of due diligence have had such actual or
constructive knowledge.
3. The operator becomes ineligible to obtain a license.
4. Any cost or fee required to be paid by this ordinance is not paid.
5. Any intoxicating liquor or cereal malt beverage is served or consumed on
the premises of the Adult Establishment.
B. The Council, before revoking or suspending any license, shall give the operator
ten days written notice of the charges against him or her, and an opportunity for
a public hearing before the Council at which time the operator may appear with
or without counsel and may present such evidence and witnesses as he or she
deems appropriate.
C. The transfer of a license or any interest in a license shall automatically and
immediately revoke the license.
D. Any operator whose license is revoked shall not be eligible to receive a license
329- 11
for one year from the date of revocation. No location or premises for which a
license has been issued shall be used as an Adult Establishment for six months
from the date of revocation of the license.
Subd. 11. Responsibilities of Operator
A. Every act or omission by an employee constituting a violation of the provisions
of this Chapter shall be deemed the act or omission of the operator if such act or
omission occurs either with the authorization, knowledge or approval of the
operator, or as a result of the operator's negligent failure to supervise the
employee's conduct, and the operator shall be punishable for such act or omission
in the same manner as if the operator committed the act or caused the omission.
B. Any act or omission of any employee constituting a violation of the provisions
of this Chapter shall be deemed the act or omission of the operator for purposes
of determining whether the operator's license shall be revoked, suspended or
renewed.
C. No employee of an Adult Establishment shall allow any minor to loiter around
or to frequent the Adult Establishment or to allow any minor to view Specified
Anatomical Areas or Specified Sexual Activity at the Adult Establishment.
D. The operator shall maintain the premises in a clean and sanitary manner at all
times.
E. The operator shall maintain at least ten-foot candles of light in the public portions
of the establishment, including aisles, at all times. However, if a lessor level of
illumination in the aisles shall be necessary to enable a patron to view the adult
entertainment in a booth, room or cubicle adjoining an aisle, a lesser amount of
illumination may be maintained in such aisles, provided, however, at no time
shall there be less than 1 foot candle of illumination in said aisles as measured
from the floor.
F. All business transactions shall occur within the licensed building.
G. No employee shall have been convicted of any felony involving moral turpitude,
prostitution, obscenity or other crime of a sexual nature or involving the use or
distribution of a controlled substance as defined by Minnesota laws, or the use
or distribution of a dangerous weapon. The fact that a conviction may be under
appeal shall not affect the disqualification of the employee.
H. The operator shall ensure compliance of the establishment and its patrons with
the provisions of this Chapter.
Subd. 12. Exclusions. All public and private schools located within the City of Arden
Hills are exempt from obtaining a license hereunder when instructing pupils in sex
education as part of its curriculum.
Subd. 13. No Minors.No person under the age of IS shall be permitted to be present in
329- 12
an Adult Establishment.
Subd. 14. Hours of Operation. The hours of operation for any business licensed under
this Chapter shall be between 9:00 AM to midnight.
Subd. 15. Penalties
A. Any individual, partnership or corporation (partnership/LLC/trust or other
business entity which is not a natural person) who is found to have violated the
provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall also be
subject to revocation of any license.
B. Each violation of this ordinance shall be considered a separate offense and any
violation continuing more than one day shall be considered a separate offense.
Subd. 16. Enforcement. Members of the law enforcement agency providing service to
the City, the Fire Marshal, or designee, the Building Official or designee and the Zoning
Administrator or designee, shall have authority to enter any Adult Establishment at all
reasonable times to inspect the premises for the purposes of enforcing this Chapter and
all other applicable State laws, fire codes and building codes.
329.04 Means of Enforcement
The City may enforce any provision of this ordinance by mandamus, injunction or any
other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. The ordinance
may also be enforced by appropriate criminal prosecution.
329.05 Separability
Every section, provision or part of this ordinance is declared separable from every
section, provision or part of this ordinance. If any section, provision, or part of this
ordinance is adjudged to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment
shall not invalidate any other section,provision, or part of this ordinance.
329- 13
Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective the day following its publication.
Adoption Date: Passed by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills
the day of 2001.
ATTEST:
DENNIS PROBST,MAYOR
JOSEPH P. LYNCH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Publication Date: Published on the of 2001.
329- 14
MINUTES
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS,MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION
WEDNESDAY,JUNE 6, 2001
6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair David Sand called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present were Vice Chair David Sand, Commissioners Warren Pakulski, Clayton
Zimmerman,Terri Duchenes, Therese Galatowitsch, and Interim Planner,Mike Cronin.
DISCUSSION
Staff summarized each report on the agenda and their reasons for their recommendations.
As a background for the Commission's consideration of the Arden Towers concept
planning and development,the staff distributed copies of section 5 and the planned unit
overlay district,per provisions from the City's zoning code.
Staff reviewed the process of the concept plan review, as opposed to the master and final
plan process, and the scope of the powers afforded to the commission, as well as the type
of comment that the commission should be effectively making.
Staff emphasized that under the City's code, the Planned Unit Development district is an
overlay district, not a freestanding zoning district. As such, the uses within the district
must comply with those disallowed in the underlying, in this case, the Gateway Business
District. Staff expressed their concerns about the conflicts this created with the proposal
for 100% office use of the building, and the inclusion of the new and expanded antenna,
and the conflict this creates with the applicants concept as presented in their proposal.
ADJOURNMENT
The worksession adjourned at 7:30 p.m. and the Planning Commission moved to the
regular meeting's agenda.
MINUTES
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY,JUNE 6, 2001
7:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair David Sand called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present were Acting Chair Dave Sand, Commissioners, Tem Duchenes, Warren
Pakulski, Clayton Zimmerman, and Therese Galatowitsch.
Absent: Chair Steve Baker, Commissioner Stephen Erickson.
Also present were Councilmember Beverly Aplikowski, Councilmember Lois Rem,
Acting Planner Michael Cronin, and Recording Secretary Kathleen Altman.
Commissioner Sand stated due to Chair Baker's absence at the meeting, he would be the
Acting Chair.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON
MAY 2, 2001
Commissioner Zimmerman requested the following revisions/corrections:
Page 5, 3 paragraph should read, "Ms. Chaput replied staff had not specifically
addressed this..."
Commissioner Pakulski moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to approve the
May 4, 2001 minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
PLANNING CASE #01-19 — DUNNETT 1543 OAK AVENUE MINOR SUBDIVISION &
CONSOLIDATION—PUBLIC HEARING
Acting Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.
Mr. Cronin explained applicant was requesting that the property at 1543 Oak Avenue be
subdivided and consolidated with the property at 3651 Snelling Avenue, described as "Parcel B"
on the survey.
Mr. Cronin presented the background information by explaining that in the past, the house
located at 3651 Snelling Avenue was built across the property line that it shared with 1543 Oak
Avenue. This became an ongoing dispute between neighbors, recently resolved through legal
proceedings. The property owners agreed that Mary Ann Bown, property owner of 1543 Oak
Avenue,would sell a portion of her property (legally described on the survey as "Parcel B", 785
square feet) to Walter and Dolores Dunnett at 3651 Snelling Avenue.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 2
Mr. Cronin stated a minor subdivision was required to split plat Parcel B from Parcel A(1543 Oak
Avenue) and consolidate Parcel B with the property located at 3651 Snelling Avenue. The
proposed parcel of land would; permit the home at 3651 Snelling Avenue to be in compliance
with the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cronin reviewed the procedural requirements which the City had reviewed for this property
as detailed in the staff report. She noted, Section 22-12, (e) of the City Code authorizes the
division of platted lots of record if the following conditions were met:
1. The owner of the platted lot to be so divided shall file with the zoning administrator a survey
of the lot to be divided. A survey of the property as it existed for 1543 Oak Avenue was
submitted.
2. The parcels resulting from such division, as depicted in said survey, shall not have an area,
dimensions, or setbacks which are less than the minimum requirements specified for the
zoning district in which the parcels are located in the zoning ordinance. The minor
subdivision creates parcels A and B from the existing 1543 Oak Avenue parcel. The existing
house will be located on Parcel A, maintaining the same structure setbacks and creating a
parcel 96,853 square feet in area. Parcel A meets all of the minimum dimensional
requirements for the R-1 District. Parcel B, 785 square feet in area, is not being created for
development since it will be consolidated with the property at 3651 Snelling Avenue as a part
of this application.
3. It is determined that the proposed division will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision is located.
The division will not negatively impact neighboring properties.
Mr. Cronin noted Section 22-12, (e) of the City Code authorized the consolidation of platted lots
of record if the following four conditions were met:
1. The owners of such platted lots to be consolidated shall file with the City Planner a survey or
registered land survey of the lots to be consolidated.
A survey of the property as it exists for 1543 Oak Avenue was submitted, showing Parcel B,
the portion that was to be combined with 3651 Snelling Avenue.
2. The parcel resulting from the consolidation shall not have an area, dimensions or setbacks
which are less than the minimum requirements specified for the zoning district in which the
parcel is located in the Zoning Ordinance.
The consolidated parcel would exceed all minimum dimensional criteria for the district and
allow the property at 3651 Snelling Avenue to meet the minimum side yard setback
requirements and become a conforming lot. Currently, the house at 3651 Snelling Avenue
was located over the property line and was nonconforming by side yard setback.
3. It was determined that the proposed consolidation would not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the consolidated parcel was
located.
The consolidation would not negatively impact neighboring properties.
Mr. Cronin summarized the zoning review for this Planning Case and advised that the City of
Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on May 8, 2001. Pursuant to
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 3
Minnesota State Statue, the City must act on this request by July 7 (60 days), unless the City
provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The
additional review period would extend to September 5. The City may with the petitioners
consent extend the review period beyond the, September 5, 2001 date.
Mr. Cronin noted if the City denied petitioner's request, "...it must state in writing the reasons
for the denial at the time it denies the request."
Mr. Cronin recommended approval of Planning Case#01-19 based on the findings detailed in
staff's memorandum.
Brian Alton, represents Dr. and Mrs. Dunnett, stated they agreed with the staff report and would
comply with the conditions.
Acting Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.
Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if the description of the property would be one description
describing the whole property, or would there be two descriptions. Mr. Alton replied there
would be one new legal description encompassing the whole property.
Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Pakulski, to recommend
approval of Planning Case #01-19, minor subdivision of 1543 Oak Avenue for consolidation
with 3651 Snelling Avenue for the following reasons and with the following conditions:
I. The application is able to meet the minimum requirements of Section 22-12, (e) of the City
Code for the final consolidation of the properties;
2. The final consolidation of Parcel B with the property at 3651 Snelling Avenue and the
remaining Parcel A, 1543 Oak Avenue, shall be recorded with Ramsey County within sixty
days of approval from the City Council; and
3. Following recording with Ramsey County, the applicant will provide evidence of recording
to the City of Arden Hills.
The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
The Adult Use Ordinance will be reviewed at the Monday, June 25, 2001, regular meeting of the
City Council.
PLANNING CASE # 01-13 — CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT (CODIFICATION OF ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE TO
ZONING) - PUBLIC HEARING
Acting Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m.
Mr. Cronin explained the City of Arden Hills requested codification of the Adult Uses Ordinance
into the Zoning Ordinance as new "Section 14: Adult Uses".
Mr. Cronin presented the background information by explaining The Adult Uses Ordinance,
Ordinance#311, was reviewed and adopted in 1998. During the City's codification process, the
decision was made that this Ordinance should be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 4
Mr. Cronin noted since the Ordinance was fairly new, staff recommended that it be codified into
the Zoning Ordinance as it was currently written. Section 1 of the Ordinance described the
moratorium and process for creating the Ordinance. The remainder of the document was the
language that should be adopted into the Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance was thoroughly
reviewed by the City Attorney prior to adoption to ensure that it met all legal requirements for
this type of use.
Mr. Cronin stated staff recommended approval of the proposed codification of the Adult Use
Ordinance into the Zoning Ordinance as new"Section 14: Adult Uses".
Acting Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Commissioner Pakulski moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to recommend
approval of the proposed codification of the Adult Use Ordinance into the Zoning Ordinance as
new"Section 14: Adult Uses".
The motion carried unanimously(5-0).
The Adult Use Ordinance will be reviewed at the Monday, June 25, 2001 regular meeting of the
City Council, effective as part of the Zoning Ordinance the day after publication in the City's
legal paper.
OLD BUSINESS
PLANNING CASE #01-08 — UNITED PROPERTIES, 4300 W. ROUND LAKE ROAD,
1987 & 1887 GATEWAY BOULEVARD—PUD AMENDMENT
Mr. Cronin explained the applicant was requesting to amend the Planned Unit Development for
the properties at 4300 W. Round Lake Road and 1887 & 1987 Gateway Blvd. to screen the
existing refuse containers on all properties.
Mr. Cronin presented the background information by explaining that this Planning Case was
originally reviewed at the April 4, 2001 Planning Commission meeting and was tabled at that
time. The Planning Commission asked that the applicant propose an alternative form of
screening (beyond fencing) so that the dumpsters on the three properties would be out of view
from the roadway. The Planning Commission recommended a more permanent solution to the
applicant, such as permanent walls extending from the buildings.
Mr. Cronin noted the applicant had submitted a letter, explaining the proposal, with photographs
of the properties. The amended proposal was to increase the amount of landscaping to screen the
loading dock areas (which house numerous dumpsters) from Round Lake Road.
Mr. Cronin summarized the zoning review for this Planning Case explained Section 6, G, #2 of
the Zoning Ordinance stated that, "In all districts, all waste materials, debris, refuse or garbage
shall be kept in an enclosed building or be properly screened and contained in a closed container
designed for such purpose so as not to be visible from adjoining properties or public streets".
Mr. Cronin stated applicant was proposing the following landscaping to properly screen the
refuse containers on the properties:
S
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 5
■ Arden Hills Gateway Center (4300 Round Lake Road): Plant six, seven foot Colorado Spruce
tress along the west side of the loading dock area where the dumpsters and trash compactors
are located. These would be relocated appropriately if Manufacturers' Services chose to
expand their parking area, as proposed in their Phase II expansion plans.
■ Arden Hills Commerce Center (1987 Gateway Boulevard): Construct a 44 x 6 foot diamond
block planter to match the existing retaining walls and plant five, six foot Colorado Spruce
trees to screen the dumpsters from Round Lake Road.
■ Arden Hills Lakeside Center (1887 Gateway Boulevard): There would a permanent wall
structure and a row of trees that already screened this area sufficiently. There was no
screening plan proposed for this property.
Mr. Cronin noted the proposed landscaping was a more appropriate solution than the previously
proposed fencing to screen the dumpster areas. Due to the layout of the buildings and loading
dock area, it was extremely difficult to fully screen the loading dock area of the Commerce
Center. The current location of ponds, surface parking and roadways creates some difficulty in
finding a way to adequately screen the loading areas. The applicant had made a good effort to
screen the area with mature trees along the available land that is visible from Round Lake Road.
Landscaping was a more aesthetically pleasing solution to this issue.
Mr. Cronin advised the City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on
March 7, 2001. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by May 6,
2001 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-
day review period. Staff sent a letter to the applicant, extending the 60-day review period to July
5,2001. The City may,with the petitioners' consent, extend the review period beyond the July
5, 2001 date.
Mr. Cronin noted if the City denied the petitioners' request, "... it must state, in writing,the
reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request."
Mr. Cronin stated staff recommended approval of Planning Case#01-08, based on the findings
detailed in staff s memorandum.
Kelly Oertli,United Properties, stated the best way to screen the 4300 W. Round Lake Road was
to plant six trees and if/when Manufacturers' Services decided to expand their parking area, the
screening would be looked at again at that time.
Mr. Cronin indicated that one of the issues they were concerned about was the screening of the
dumpster and requested it be moved over 100 to 200 feet. Ms. Oertli replied Manufacturers'
Services had placed the dumpster there and she was not sure if there was a reason it was there,
but without a representative of Manufacturers' Services at the meeting, she could not comment
on it,but would check with Manufacturers' Services about this concern.
Chuck Habiger,HSK Associates, stated as part of the Phase 11 parking, Manufacturers' Services
would move the dumpster and indicated on the site plan where the dumpster would be moved to.
Acting Chair Sand expressed concern if the Phase II parking was not done for a few years,what
type of screening would there be until that time. Mr. Habiger replied there would be trees placed
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 6
in that area for now, which would be relocated at the time the Phase 11 parking was done.
Additional screening would also be added at the time Phase II parking was completed.
Acting Chair Sand expressed concern that landscaping only may not provide an adequate screen
and was not satisfied there was adequate screening of the dumpster under this phase. Ms. Oertli
stated originally it was planned just to screen the dumpsters and she had proposed a fence. She
stated the Commission requested at that time to have a more permanent screening. She indicated
because the parking lot was looked at as being expanded, it did not make sense to put something
permanent in that area. The landscaping option made the most sense.
Acting Chair Sand stated screening was to hide the dumpster and he did not believe the trees
would hide the dumpster. Ms. Oertli replied a fence was less expensive than trees and if the
Commission wanted a fence, they would be willing to do that.
Acting Chair Sand suggested having both a fence and landscaping.
Mr. Cronin asked on the north parcel, the trees be planted 10 feet on center. He also requested
moving the dumpster back 100 feet away from the road at this time. He requested on the south
side, they plant 12-foot trees,rather than 5-6 foot trees so it would provide adequate screening
immediately.
Ms. Oertli stated she would ask Manufacturers' Services if the dumpster could be relocated.
Commissioner Duchene asked when one or two of the trees dies, would there be an obligation to
replant. Ms. Oertli stated they would replace the trees if they did not survive.
Commissioner Duchene asked if this approval was requested for all dumpsters that may ever be
located behind the buildings. Ms. Oertli stated the hope was that this would be a solution to
having to screen the dumpsters individually.
Commissioner Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Pakulski, to recommend approval of
Planning Case#01-08,Planned Unit Development amendment, to install additional landscaping
on 4300 W. Round Lake Road and 1987 Gateway Boulevard to screen refuse containers with the
following conditions:
1. The screening on 4300 W. Round Lake Road is to include six 7-foot Colorado Spruce
trees spaced 10 foot on center.
2. A fence is to be constructed to screen the dumpster of sufficient height and length to
cover the dumpster from view of West Round Lake Boulevard.
3. The dumpster is to be moved as far to the east as practical without interfering with other
equipment.
4. With respect to 1987 Gateway Boulevard, five ten-foot Colorado Spruce trees are to be
planted 20 foot on center.
5. Additional screening was not required on the property at 1887 Gateway Boulevard (also
managed by United Properties) since the current wing wall and landscaping sufficiently
screens the loading dock area; and
6. The screening, as provided in the plans, must be in place by no later than August 31,
2001 on all properties.
The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 7
This Planning Commission will be heard at the Monday, June 25, 2001 regular meeting of the
City Council.
PLANNING CASE #01-12b —MANUFACTURERS' SERVICES 4300 W. ROUND LAKE
ROAD, PUD AMENDMENT (PHASE II PARKING)
Mr. Cronin explained the applicant was requesting to amend the Planned Unit Development for
4300 West Round Lake Road to expand the parking area by 27 parking spaces along the
southwest side of the parcel (Phase II).
Mr. Cronin presented the background information by explaining that both phases (I and II) of
this Planning Case were originally reviewed at the May 2, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of Phase I,with conditions, to the City
Council,heard at their meeting on May 29, 2001. The proposed Phase II parking area expansion
was tabled for additional information regarding screening of the loading area and the
replacement of trees that would be removed as a result of the expansion. Also, another planning
case,Planning Case#01-08, was proposing screening for this property(as well as the two
neighboring properties) at the same time that this Case was heard and the Planning Commission
wanted to have the opportunity to review both Cases at the same meeting.
Mr. Cronin noted the applicant had submitted an additional drawing for further review,
illustrating additional landscaping,retaining wall locations and a section of the parking lot
expansion in Phase II.
Mr. Cronin summarized the zoning review for the Planning Case and advised the Phase II
parking lot expansion proposed an additional 27 parking spaces beyond the 38 spaces provided
in Phase I and the 408 parking spaces that currently existed.
Mr. Cronin stated The original PUD requested that this property have no more than 20%office
when constructed but it was built with 31%office with parking to match a 20%office build out,
driving the need for additional parking today. Although the office (31%)to warehouse (69%)
ratio was not proposed to change for this site, Phase II proposed an additional thirty employees
in the warehouse. The proposal met all of the dimensional requirements of the G-B District, as
shown in Table 1,with the exception of landscape lot area.
Mr. Cronin explained the property was built with 37% landscape area. The proposed Phase II
expansion decreased the landscape lot area below the Ordinance requirement (35%)to 33%.
However, as a trade off, staff proposed that 33% landscape lot area was acceptable due to the
willingness of the applicant to increase the number of trees in locations that would help to better
screen the loading dock area which had been an issue in the past.
Mr. Cronin advised the City of Arden Hills received the complete application for this request on
April 4, 2001. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 3,
2001 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-
day review period. Staff sent the applicant a letter extending the additional review period to
IsAugust 1, 2001. The City may, with the petitioners' consent, extend the review period beyond
the August 1, 2001 date.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 g
Mr. Cronin noted if the City denies the petitioners' request, "... it must state, in writing, the
reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request."
Mr. Cronin stated staff recommended approval of Planning Case#01-12b, based on the findings
detailed in staff's memorandum.
Chuck Habiger, HKS Associates, indicated the dumpster would eventually be relocated once
Phase II parking was started. The dumpster would no longer be able to be seen from W. Round
Lake Boulevard once it was relocated. Mr. Habiger summarized the landscaping plan that
Manufacturers' Services was proposing.
Commissioner Duchene asked how the landscaping would tolerate snow and salt. Mr. Habiger
replied the trees would be very tolerant of the winter conditions.
Acting Chair Sand clarified Mr. Habiger was going to ask applicant to move the dumpster now.
Mr. Habiger replied that was correct.
Commissioner Pakulski moved, seconded by Commissioner Galatowitsch, to recommend
approval of Planning Case#01-12b, PUD Amendment for Manufacturers' Services to expand the
parking area by 27 spaces in Phase II,with the following conditions:
1. The landscape lot area may be reduced from 35%to 33%due to the addition of plantings to
better screen the parking area from W. Round Lake Road than it does currently;
2. All lighting, additional and relocated, must meet the requirements of the Ordinance and
match the existing fixtures on site;
3. The applicant must contact Rice Creek Watershed District for a permit; and
4. Application for a building permit must be made with the City Building Official.
5. As part of Phase II, the dumpster be located as far as possible to the east side of the parking
area.
The motion carried unanimously(5-0).
This Planning Commission would be reviewed at the Tuesday, June 25, 2001 regular meeting of
the City Council.
PLANNING CASE #01-14 —CITY OF ARDEN HILLS (FIRST REVIEM) —
CODIFICATION INTO ZONING ORDINANCE (EXCAVATIONS
Mr. Cronin explained the City of Arden Hills requested a first review of the Excavations
Ordinance for codification into the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cronin presented the background information by explaining during the City's recodification
process of the City Code, the decision was made to incorporate the Excavations Ordinance into
the Zoning Ordinance. This Ordinance had not been reviewed or amended since the original
Code's adoption.
Mr. Cronin stated during a discussion of this Ordinance with the City's Building Official, it was
brought to staffs attention that the City has adopted a section of the State Building Code
(Appendix 33: Excavation and Grading) which already covered the information within the
Excavations Ordinance.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 9
Mr. Cronin explained since the Building Code already covered this subject thoroughly and was
the language currently used for review of permits for excavation and grading, there was no need
to review and recodify the Excavations Ordinance that had been removed from the City Code. It
was possible that this was the reason the Ordinance was originally removed from the City Code,
since so many years have passed and a variety of staff had been involved.
Mr. Cronin indicated staff recommended there be no further review of the Excavation Ordinance
since it was adequately covered in State Building Code Appendix Chapter 33: Excavation and
Grading, as previously adopted by the City.
NEW BUSINESS
PLANNING CASE #01-10 — ARDEN TOWERS 1777 GATEWAY BOULEVARD
CONCEPT PUD
Mr. Cronin explained the applicant was requesting the review of a concept planned unit
development for the property located at 1777 Gateway Boulevard.
Mr. Cronin presented the background information by explaining that the property at 1777
Gateway Boulevard, commonly referred to as the tower property, had a lengthy history of
applications.
Mr. Cronin summarized in Planning Case#81-05, a Special Use Permit was approved on this
property for the construction of a 700 foot antenna tower.
Mr. Cronin noted U.S. West made application to install an antenna array on the existing tower in
Planning Case#98-10. The application was approved with the condition that they comply with
the Ehresmann engineering report. After reviewing the Ehresmann report, the Building Official
noted that the report did not include calculations for 1/2" radial ice as required by the State
Building Code and requested it of the applicant. U.S. West submitted a new report, including this
information, stating that the tower did not meet the State requirement for 1/2" radial ice nor a 69
m.p.h. wind. In a letter to the applicant, dated November 5, 1999, the Building Official found the
structure to be unsafe. The State of Minnesota agreed with the City's decision to declare the
tower an unsafe structure.
Mr. Cronin stated on December 17, 1999, the applicant applied for a building permit to construct
a new 700 foot tower on the site, to be in compliance with the State Code. On January 6, 2000,
The Building Official denied the building permit application based on the following Sections of
the Zoning Ordinance:
■ Section 6 (I)#3 (b). No antenna or tower shall exceed a height of seventy-five feet(75').
■ Section 6 (I) #2. Antennas, satellite dish antennas and towers are allowed only as special
accessory uses. They are therefore allowed only on a property containing a principal use to
which the antenna, dish antenna or tower is accessory.
■ Section 6(I)#4 (d). Antennas and towers shall not be allowed nearer to any property line than
the height of the antenna or tower.
■ Section 9 (J). In the event a nonconforming building is hereafter destroyed by any cause, it
shall not be restored or reconstructed except in conformity with the applicable requirements
of this ordinance.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 10
■ Section 1 I (A) #1. No building permit or other permit pertaining to the use of land or
buildings shall be issued unless such building is designed and arranged to conform to the
provisions of this ordinance.
Mr. Cronin indicated applicant appealed the building permit denial to the Planning Commission
in November, 2000. In December, 2000, the Arden Hills City Council affirmed the decision of
the Building Official to deny a building permit for the reconstruction of a tower on this site.
Mr. Cronin explained at this time, the applicant had submitted an application for a concept PUD
for the construction of two office buildings, structured parking and the reconstruction of a 750
foot tower. The applicant had submitted the following information a wetlands delineation and a
booklet of information and plans.
Mr. Cronin reviewed the PUD Concept Plan which the City had reviewed as detailed in the staff
report. Mr. Cronin noted a Concept PUD was a discussion process that allowed the applicant to
present preliminary ideas to the City and to receive feedback from the City. No public hearing
was held on this portion of the application so the City can not take action. The Planning
Commission offered comments and suggestions to the applicant, which were then forwarded to
the City Council to do the same. No suggestions made by the Planning Commission or City
Council were binding to future stages of the PUD process.
Mr. Cronin explained if the applicant so chose, they may accept the comments of the City
Council and make formal application for a Master PUD, followed by a Final PUD before
construction occurs on the site.
Mr. Cronin stated special requirements for the Gateway Business District were outlined in
Section 5 (M) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cronin reviewed the allowable use by explaining in the Gateway Business District, "office"
was a permitted principal use. Section 5 (M) #3 outlines specific requirements for the District for
allowable uses. There was a stipulation by this Section that states that office uses cannot occupy
less than 25% or more than 50% of a project's total floor area. The Welsh Developments along
Gateway Boulevard were limited in their office component to 20% (warehouse for the remaining
area) so that more office use could be accommodated on the prominent corner property (I-694 &
1-3 5W). A Master PUD for that property, proposing 100% office build-out, was approved earlier
this year. This proposal also proposed 100% office, 50% above the maximum permitted in the
G-B District.
Mr. Cronin stated a 750-foot antenna tower was also proposed as a use on this property. The
antenna was not accessory to the office use on the property. It was considered a principal use
since it did not support or in any way related to the office use on the property. Section 6 (I) #2
stated that antennas were allowed only, "...on property containing a principal use to which the
antenna, dish antenna or tower is accessory". Therefore, the proposed antenna was not a
permitted principal use in the G-B District.
Mr. Cronin presented the Development Standards, structure height, by explaining the District
Requirements Chart of the Zoning Ordinance stated a maximum structure height of 35 feet for
the District. However, Section 5 (M) #5 (b) contradicts this by stating that, "multi-story buildings
will be encouraged", "the use of stepped buildings in encouraged" and "the location of buildings
relative to their heights will consider views"within the Gateway Business District. The intent of
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—NNE 6, 2001 11
the District was to promote high quality, large-scale development and take full advantage of the
site's location. The proposed height of the two office buildings was 56 feet each, exceeding the
35-foot maximum for the District. The proposed antenna was 750 feet in height where only a
maximum of 75 feet was permitted, if it was accessory to the primary use on the property.
Mr. Cronin presented the structure setbacks by stating the building setback requirements for the
District were as follows: 50 feet from streets and exterior property lines; 20 feet from side and
rear property lines. The front yard was defined as the part of the lot that abuts a street. The
proposed bisects the site although the property lines did not. The proposed office buildings meet
the setback requirements from both the proposed street and I-694, as shown on the plans. The
proposed accessory structure below the antenna did not meet the Ordinance requirements since it
had been placed in the front yard of the lot. Front yards in this proposal were considered that
property which abuts the proposed street(on both the North and South side) and the property
abutting I-694. Any accessory structures on this property would have to be located in the side
yard of the office buildings.
Mr. Cronin presented by structure exteriors by explaining the Zoning Ordinance required that
exterior wall surfaces in the GB District be brick, stone, glass or any combination of these. The
exterior materials proposed for the office buildings and accessory structure are pre-finished
aluminum,brick and glass. Pre-finished aluminum was not a material permitted by the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant had supplied plans and elevations of the proposed office buildings.
Although the accessory structure had been described in the narrative, there were no plans
showing it in elevation, which should had been submitted.
Mr. Cronin summarized the traffic study g statin the traffic study for the District was completed
by BRW in 1998, analyzing potential development and still keeping Highway 96 and Round
Lake Road within design capacity. SEH completed another traffic study in 2000, analyzing
BRW's study and taking into consideration the potential development by Chesapeake Companies
in the northeast quadrant of I-35W and I-694. The applicant obtained another traffic analysis
from Biko and Associates, analyzing the traffic impact of the proposed development of the tower
site.
Mr. Cronin explained the conclusions of the traffic study stated that the 96/W. Round Lake Road
intersection would operate at acceptable levels with the implementation of both the Chesapeake
and Arden Towers projects. There would also be less than desirable operations at the 96/1-35W
ramps and it was suggested that signalization should be reviewed for these areas. Biko suggested
that improvements be made to the 96/1-35W bridge and improvements be made at the 96/10
intersection. Both of these areas are under review with Ramsey County and the State although
they may not be scheduled for quite some time.
Mr. Cronin summarized the parking requirements by explaining by the Zoning Ordinance,the
parking requirement for an office development was 1 parking space for every 250 square feet.
There was 265,514 square feet of office space,requiring 1,062 parking spaces which was
satisfied by the proposal.
Mr. Cronin stated the parking area includes surface parking and two, two level parking ramps.
There must be a 50-foot landscape setback from all public streets and 20 feet from other property
lines to surface parking areas. The parking ramps were not considered to be principal structures
so they were subject to the accessory structure or parking setback requirements, since the Zoning
Ordinance was unclear on this issue. The parking setbacks were more stringent and, therefore,
f
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 12
the ramps were evaluated accordingly. The setbacks were not met when measured from the
proposed street at 21 feet when 50 was required.
Mr. Cronin presented the site access information stating there was currently a 66' wide utility
easement that ran east to west across the middle of this property. This easement could not be
built upon by a structure so a road was being proposed over it. The City would need to maintain
access to this easement and it should be, therefore, a public street with a right of way of no less
than 60', as required for local streets. The proposed street was a width of 24 feet. The only public
street that could serve this site, Gateway Boulevard, does not connect to the west property line of
this property.
Mr. Cronin explained there was currently an unimproved road serving the tower site, for
maintenance of the tower. Staff was unaware if the applicant had an easement agreement with
other property owners to access the site as no easement was shown on the submitted plans. The
improved portion of the road stops on the west side of the pond for Apache. The land between
existing Gateway Boulevard and the applicant's property was previously owned by Morris
Communications and just recently acquired by Chesapeake Companies. Therefore, this site did
not currently have a connection to a public street, as was required for development.
Mr. Cronin summarized the public safety for this Planning Case by explaining the proposal
discusses the construction of a 750-foot antenna tower(although 700-feet was shown in the
plans). Due to the fact that the current antenna had been found unsafe, the applicant needed to
build another tower, although zoning prohibited it. The Building Official had stated that
numerous additional antennas had been added to the tower without building permits or staff
approval, creating this unsafe condition.
Mr. Cronin stated the new proposed tower would replace the existing tower. It would be
constructed along side of the existing tower, approximately 20 feet from the base. When fully
constructed, the antennas would be transferred from the old tower to the new tower and the
existing tower would be taken down.
Mr. Cronin explained Allied Tower had provided documentation in the submitted booklet on the
fall radius of guyed towers, including ice fall. The report stated that there have been a total of 14
incidents in the USA of tower collapses from weather conditions. From the information obtained
by these falls, it's presumed that a tower of 750 feet in height would have a fall radius of 199
feet. Towers do not fall over but collapse on themselves. As for ice falling, the memorandum
from Allied Towers stated that ice heavy enough to do damage would fall within a radius of no
more than 20 feet from the tower.
Mr. Cronin stated although the memorandums stated that it was safe to place office buildings and
parking structures beneath a tower of this magnitude, staff was still concerned about the safety
and well being of the residents and business people who would be on this property from day to
day. Falling ice from not only the tower but the guyed wires was of concern, even though the
area was proposed to be fenced. Additionally, long-range trail plans include a trail around Round
Lake, including a portion through this property. If development occurred on the property, a
pedestrian trail easement would be requested.
Mr. Cronin summarized the drainage, wetlands and floodplain requirements by explaining the
application proposed to enhance or restore the wetlands on the property back to their original state
since they had declined as a result of unimproved roads and the pasteurization of horses on the
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 13
property for some time. Three detention basins were provided to collect storm water runoff,
designed to NURP standards so that the storm water is treated prior to discharge. By this proposal,
the wetland on the west side of the property will be eliminated and mitigated at a ratio of 2:1. The
mitigation area would be provided on the east side of the larger wetland and within the three
retention basins constructed on the site. The larger wetland on the eastern portion of the site would
not be disturbed with development. The applicant had prepared a wetland delineation report.
Approval of the plan, following City Council approval, would be required by Rice Creek
Watershed District.
Mr. Cronin advised the City of Arden Hills received the complete application for this request on
May 9, 2001. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue the City must act on this request by July 8, 2001
(60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day
review period. The additional review period would extend to August 7, 2001. The City may, with
the petitioner's consent, extend the review period beyond the August 7, 2001 date.
Mr. Cronin stated if the City denied the petitioner's request, "... it must state in writing the reason
for the denial at the time that it denies the request."
Mr. Cronin presented staff's preliminary comments on Planning Case#01-10 based on the
following:
1. It should be clarified if the proposed antenna tower is 700 feet (per the plans) or 750 feet in
height (per the narrative);
2. The antenna tower could not be reconstructed for the following reasons:
■ The tower is currently a nonconforming structure that can not be rebuilt without
conforming with the Zoning Ordinance;
■ The tower is not permitted as a principal use on the property;
■ The tower exceeds the maximum allowable height of 75 feet;
■ The tower is nearer to the property line than the height of the tower.
3. No more than 50% of a project's total floor area may be office;
4. The height of the proposed office buildings shall not exceed 35 feet;
5. The conflicting Zoning Ordinance text regarding the maximum height requirement and
percentage of office within the District should be discussed and clarified by the City;
6. The accessory structure for the antenna must be located in the side or rear yard, not the front,
and additional elevation information is needed to properly evaluate the structure;
7. Exterior materials for the office buildings and accessory structure include pre-finished
aluminum which is not identified as a permitted material;
8. A pedestrian trail easement by Round Lake would be requested as part of this development;
9. Surface and ramped parking requires a setback of 50 feet from the proposed and existing street
which is not met;
10. The proposed street should be public with a required right-of-way width of no less than 60 feet
for a local street, since it is located on an existing 66 foot public utility easement;
11. The development of the property requires direct access to Gateway Boulevard which it
currently does not have;
12. Consideration should be made for improvements to the Hwy 96/10 and 96/1-3 5W intersections
as per the traffic study;
13. Reconstruction of the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Round Lake Road should be
considered to accommodate development; and
14. The applicant must obtain all necessary reviews and permits from Rice Creek Watershed
District.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 14
Chuck Habiger, HKS Associates, stated applicant's tower was no longer in compliance with State
guidelines and that was the reason they were requesting this proposal. Mr. Habiger summarized
applicant's proposal and presented site plans for the area.
Mr. Habiger clarified that all of the panels on the building would be glass with the pre-finished
aluminum being around the glass.
William Smith, Transportation Planner with Biko Associates, summarized the traffic study and the
development of Chesapeake Companies. He indicated two traffic studies had been prepared on the
site, one before the Chesapeake office development was developed and the other one prepared in
2000. The results from the first study indicated the intersection could accept an additional 1,100
cars during peak hours. He stated while the intersection could handle the additional cars, there was
concern regarding the ramp terminals on and off of I35W. He indicated traffic signals would
probably fix any problems with those ramp terminals. However, any improvements with the
ramps would probably not be made until 2003.
Commissioner Pakulski inquired about the lane width. Mr. Smith replied the lane width was
chosen for traffic calming purposes and there would be no parking allowed on the street.
Tom Stella, United Properties, summarized the market conditions for office space versus
office/warehouse space.
Mr. Habiger addressed the concerns regarding the tower including safety issues raised by staff.
Mr. Habiger stated applicant had a contractual obligation for the tower for the next 17 years and it
would be a financial hardship for applicant to take the tower down and redevelop the site. Mr.
Habiger restated that the current design of the tower did not meet the Code requirements.
Dan Vaughn, Arden Towers, stated the existing tower had been there for 20 years and the tower
they were talking about replacing it with would be a tower almost identical in appearance to the
one that was there now. The new tower would have solid steel legs, instead of tubular steel legs,
which would make it a stronger tower and therefore, it would hold more antennas. He indicated
the tower served a large part of the community and it was a very important structure in the
communication industry in the City. He stated it would be very difficult to take it down and find a
replacement.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked what dictated the height of the tower. Mr. Vaughn stated 700
feet was what the tower was now, and that was what the new tower would be. There was a
misprint in the application.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if Mr. Vaughn had prepared a cost analysis as to building versus
not building the new tower. Mr. Vaughn replied he would have to buy out his contractual
obligations, and while he had not specifically looked at the financial end of this, he believed the
tower was an asset to the City.
Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if Mr. Vaughn was under a contractual obligation to provide a
safe tower. Mr. Vaughn replied that was correct. Is
Commissioner Galatowitsch stated by adding buildings to the property, the tower would be an
accessory use and the Code only allowed for a 75-foot tower under an accessory use. Mr. Vaughn
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 15
• replied it was always intended there would eventually be buildings on the property. However, the
PUD did not reflect this.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if Mr. Vaughn wanted feedback on the whole concept, or on
individual parts of the concept. Mr. Habiger replied before they went ahead with the office
development, they wanted to have the new tower constructed with the existing tower removed. He
stated they were looking for feedback on the overall concept to reconstruct the tower and the office
development proposal.
Acting Chair Sand asked for clarification on the March 20, 2001 letter addressed to HKS from
Allied Tower regarding the "80-foot" communications tower. Mr. Habiger replied he believed that
was a misprint. He stated it had always been proposed that the tower would be 700-feet.
Acting Chair Sand stated in terms of the Planning Commission's obligations, the tower seemed to
be non-conforming and therefore if a new tower was put in place of the old tower, the Commission
would be approving a non-conforming structure and he indicated he had a concern about that. He
expressed concern that more than 50% of a project's total floor area might be office space. He also
expressed concern regarding the building height. With respect to the traffic study,the facts would
be changing in the new few years, so the traffic study would be moot.
Commissioner Zimmerman expressed concern about the current traffic congestion and he believed
it was important the Planning Commission look at the traffic patterns and congestion.
Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if it was possible to have a traffic access off of Interstate 694
instead of off Highway 96. Mr. Habiger stated it was not permitted for a private development to
have access onto an Interstate.
Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if they had looked at working with the Federal authorities for
the possibility of adding some type of a frontage/service road along Interstate 694 and adding an
access to Interstate 694 to the east. Mr. Habiger stated this would be the most desirable solution,
except the developments to the east were residential developments and most residents would object
to this type of an access.
Mr. Habiger stated while there was no concern that the tower would fail at any time in the near
future,the tower did not meet today's safety standards.
Commissioner Pakulski expressed concern about the density of the office building. He stated he
did not have a specific opinion with the tower, and he did not believe he had any authority to make
a decision regarding the tower.
Commissioner Zimmerman also expressed concern about the office density. With respect to the
tower, he believed it would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and whether he agreed with it
or not, that was what the current Ordinances were. He suggested Mr. Vaughn prepare an economic
cost analysis.
Commissioner Galatowitsch stated she was empathetic to Mr. Vaughn's concerns about the tower
and believed the tower was an asset to the City. However, having the two uses on the property was
a concern for her. She also expressed concern about ice falling from the tower and asked for
further safety analysis regarding this.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 16
Commissioner Duchene stated safety was a huge concern for her. The tower issue was beyond her
power to deal with. She expressed concerns with the proximity of the parking ramps to the tower.
SET JULY MEETING DATE
The Planning Commission set the July meeting for July 11, 2001.
REPORTS
A. Council Liaison
Councilmember Aplikowski gave an update on Representative Betty McCollum's visit regarding
the TCAAP property.
Councilmember Aplikowski gave an update on what the City Council had approved at their last
meeting.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated the City had gone on summer hours, working four 9 hour
days and four hours on Fridays, until August 31.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated the Arden Hills Golden Celebration buttons were available
for purchase.
B. Planning Commissioners
There were no reports from the Commission.
C. Staff
There were no reports from staff.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Duchene, to adjourn the meeting
at 10:00 p.m. The motion carried unanimously(5-0).
--AEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 21, 2001
TO: Joe Lynch, City Administrator el
FROM: Terrance Post, City AccountanP
SUBJECT: City Hall Rochon Corporation Contract—Proposed Change Order No. 3
I
Background
At the June 26, 2000,regular meeting, the Arden Hills City Council accepted,but did not award,
the low bid from Rochon Corporation, for construction of the new City Hall, in the total amount
of$2,942,000. The bid price consisted of the following elements:
1. Base bid for project $2,735,000.00
includes stone masonry)
2. Alternate No. 3 — adding second floor windows 25,000.00
of the same style and height as the first floor
3. Alternate B—construct left hand turn lane off 16,000.00
Highway 96
4. Adding water and sanitary sewer utilities to 166,000.00
ity Hall
TOTAL BID $2,942,000.00
At the October 10, 2000, City Council meeting, Rochon Corporation was awarded the full
construction contract for the project.
Subsequent Approved Change Orders No. 1 and No. 2
At the January 8, 2001, regular meeting, the Arden Hills City Council approved Change Order
No. 1, in the amount of$12,544,bringing the total contract price to $2,954,544. This change
order included underground duct board insulation ($2,891); PVC coated ductwork ($3,195);
installation costs associated with underground ductwork ($3,653); air supply into basement
restrooms ($1,081); and a 6-mil vapor barrier under the slab on grade ($1,724).
At the March 26, 2001, regular meeting, the Arden Hills City Council approved Change Order
No. 2, in the amount of$62,947,bringing the total contract price to $3,017,491. This change
order included roof drains and associated piping ($6,340); finish basement community room B01
with carpet instead of vinyl flooring and provide painted wallboard on block wall ($7,699);
provide and install manual transfer switch for mobile emergency back-up generator($14,073);
revise reception desk area and specify stone black granite top ($10,363); provide card reader
City Hall Rochon Corporation Contract—Proposed Change Order No.3—Page 2—June 21,2001
system in lieu of specified locking hardware ($18,847); provide partition wall, door and
temperature control zone for new room 130A ($5,022); five (5) items with a net cost of($603).
City staff believes that the $6,340 additional cost for the two additional roof drains is
inappropriate and should have been included in the original specifications/drawings. This staff
viewpoint has been communicated,by letter, to Architectural Alliance.
Proposed Change Order No. 3
Architectural Alliance has submitted Change Order No. 3 dated June 4, 2001, totaling
$38,593.93, and consisting of four(4) items. The items include the following:
1. Provide new National Guard office room B03 $8,455.00
minus mechanical work (Note: staff did not
believe the proposed add for HVAC in this
room was competitive. This work(estimated at
$7,500)will be contracted after the building is
occupied)
2. Furnish and install telephone and data lines 26,002.00
throughout building
3. Caulking for head joint at stone cap on parapet 3,499.93
wall
4. Add"2001"date stone at entrance 637.00
TOTAL Change Order No. 3 $38,593.93
Recommendation
Staff has reviewed,participated in discussions with the architect and contractor, and found the
content of Change Order No. 3 items to be reasonable. Staff would, therefore, recommend that
the Arden Hills City Council approve Change Order No. 3 with Rochon Corporation in the
amount of$38,593.93. The approval of Change Order No. 3 would increase the total contract
cost to $3,056,085.93; although $6,340 of this total (cost of two additional roof drains) remains a
disputed contract item.
Enclosure
ARCHITICHRAl ALLIANCE
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
Project: Arden Hills City Hall Date: June 4,2001
1245 West Hwy 96
Arden Hills,MN 55112
Comm No: 1997149
To Contractor: Rochon Corporation Owner: City of Arden Hills
Suite 101 Arden Hills City Hall
3650 Annapolis Lane North Round Lake Business Center
Plymouth, MN 55447 4364 W. Round Lake Rd.
Rochon#0028 Arden Hills,MN 55112-5794
It is mutually agreed that when this Change Order has been signed by the Owner,Architect,and Contractor,the
following described changes shall be executed by the Contractor and shall change the Contract as herein stipulated.
1. Proposal Request No. 21 (revised 4/244/01)
Provide new National Guard office room B03 minus the mechanical work.
(Associated cost$8,455.00)
2. Proposal Request No. 22 (revised 5/17/01)
Telephone and Data.
(Associated cost $26,002.00)
3. Architects Supplemental Instructions No.20
Caulking at head joints at the stone cap at parapet wall
(Associated cost$3,499.93)
4. Add one date stone (misc.cost no#11) (Associated cost$637.00)
Attachments: PR NO.21, PR-e5, PR-21a2.1, PR2la9.1,5E1.1,PR NO.22, PR E6,Spec. 16743,ASI NO. 20,Misc
cost no 11
Original Contract Sum $ 2,942,000.00
Net Change by Previously Approved Change Orders $ 75,491.00
Contract Sum prior to this Change Order $ 3,017,491.00
Contract Sum will be increased by this Change Order $ 38,593.9933 n(�
New Contract Sum including this Change Order $ 3,056084(90 j> p
Contract Time will be unchanged by this Change Order......................................................................................0 days
Approved For:
Architti)
tural Alliance Rochon Corporation City of Arden Hills
By: By: By:
Title: aj�j Title: Title:
Date: Date: Date: Date:
400 Clifton Avenue South. Minneapolis. Minnesota. 55403-3299. Tel. (612)871-5703, Fax (612)871-7212