Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-1988 PTRC Agenda-Minutes AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. VILLAGE HALL 1. Call to Order and Roll Call . 2. Approval of Minutes of November 2, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. 3. Case No. 87-26 Final plat of Edgewater Estates Second Addition; Mardon Homes, Inc. 3,5" 4. Case No. 88,I< Various height and area variances for signs on Burger King Restaurant site; Northland Construction Management 5. Case No. 88-36 Site plan approval for a corporate headquarters office building for and by Hans Hagen Homes 6. Review and comment on proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment 7. Council report. • 8. Adjournment. ********************************************* PLEASE CALL THE VILLAGE OFFICE IF YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING 633-5676 • MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, December 7, 1988, 7:30 p.m. - Village Hall CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof Chairman Robert Curtis called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Robert Curtis, Paul Malone, Raymond McGraw, Dennis Probst, Barbara Piotrowski, Dorothy Zehm and Dave Carlson. Absent: Peter Martin and Scott Petersen. Also -Present: Planner John Bergly, Councilmember JoAnn Growe, Jeanne Winiecki and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. APPROVE MINUTES Zehm moved, seconded by Malone, that the Minutes of the November 2, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) CASE #87-26; FINAL Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 12-7-88, relative PLAT; EDGEWATER EST. to the Final Plat for Edgewater Estates Second Addition, 2ND ADDN, MARDON Mardon Homes, Inc. HOMES, INC. The Planner advised the Edgewater project has been ongoing since 1985 and the PUD concept plan, rezoning, landscape plan, grading plan and lighting were approved on a preliminary basis in 1987. He stated the current request for approval of Final Plat for the Townhouse development and conforms in every respect to the approved preliminary plat, including modifications recommended by Council in 1987. Bergly advised Arden Hills Code requires that the Final Plat be filed within 90 days after filing of the Preliminary Plat. He explained the U.S. Fish and • Wildlife Service, the Village Attorney and the developer's attorney have been negotiating an easement exchange which has been in progress for approximately one year, which is one of the reasons for the delay in filing the Final Plat. The Planner stated the negotiations for the exchange of easements on the single family lots located on Wedgewood Circle and the open space area identified as Lot 9 are completed; a reduction in the easement on the rear portion of Lots 6, 7 and 8 of Wedgewood Circle, to provide adequate building sites, was exchanged for the title to the open space easement on Lot 9 of Edgewater Estates. Bergly displayed a diagram outlining the exchange of land. Bergly advised Commission the plat defines Lot 9 as a flowage easement and the developer may have to redraft that portion of the plat in this area. Engineer Barry Peters contacted the Planner and advised the Sanitary Sewer extension in this area is completed and would have to be shown as an easement on the Final Plat. The Planner recommended approval of the Final Plat, subject to the Engineer review and approval of easement, the Attorney review and approval of title and the minor corrections to the plat identifying the easements. Member Probst questioned if the Commission should recommend the 90 day filing period be waived and when the project construction would begin. Bergly advised it would be appropriate to waive the 90 day filing period. • Keith Tramm, Mardon Homes, Inc. , stated construction is scheduled to begin within one week. Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, December 7, 1988 Page 2 CASE 87-26 (Cont'd) Probst explained if Council is interested there is an opportunity to declare this area a Tax Increment Financing District, which would have no effect on this development and would allow the City to capture that tax increment over the next ten years. Probst • stated it is his understanding that once building permits are issued the opportunity is lost. Tramm stated that no building permits for the project have been issued at this time and offered to discuss delaying the project with others in his company. There was discussion relative to the Council action to research declaring the area a development district; Malone advised that no formal action has been taken by the Council other than to direct staff to outline the steps of this process. Winiecki commented that the Council movement appears to be directed toward declaring the area a TIF District, however, it has never been formalized. She suggested Commission could request Council consider taking action at this time to declare the TIF district so that the increments are not lost. Commission concurred to request staff to outline the process and time-frame for declaring a TIF district and request Council consider expediting formal action on the process if the time-frame deems such action can be accomplished in coordination with this project. Bergly advised if the increments are not captured on the first unit constructed in this development it may be possible to obtain the increments on the remaining units. Probst moved, seconded by Malone, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #87-26, Final Plat of Edgewater Estates Second Addition, conditioned upon: 1) The Village Engineer approval of easements, and 2. The Village Attorney approval of Title, and, further that as part of this action Council waive time requirement of the 90 day filing period between Preliminary and Final Plat approval. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) CASE #88-35; SIGN Planner Bergly referred Commission to his report of VARIANCES; BURGER 12-7-88, relative to the application for sign variances KING, LEXINGTON AVE. at the Burger King site on Lexington Avenue by Northland NORTHLAND CONST.MGMT. Construction Management. Bergly explained the signage plan submitted and reviewed the individual sign variance requests as outlined in his report. He stated height and area variances would be required for the free-standing business sign at the entrance, the "Menu-Board" sign for the drive-up service lane and the "Low-Clearance sign at the entrance to the drive-up service lane. Planner Bergly noted the directional signs do not require variances, however, only two signs are allowed by Ordinance and additional signs would require Council approval; one additional directional sign is proposed to achieve orderly movement of vehicles on the site and clearly direct patrons to their destination. The Planner reviewed considerations he outlined in his report for each of the signs: -Business Sign at entrance - The sign consists of three separate signs and • both height and area exceed requirements. The 8' x 8' Burger King sign apparently controls the size of the other two signs; if the overall sign is scaled back in height and area, the other two signs would be reduced in size and/or eliminated. Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, December 7, 1988 Page 3 CASE 88-35 (Cont'd) The reader board sign would have to be eliminated and the second business signs reduced to 4.5 feet in height for the overall sign to comply with the area requirements. If the reader board provides information regarding the business, it becomes an "advertising" sign, not merely a "business" sign. Bergly stated the applicant is of the opinion a larger/higher sign is warranted due to the distance from the travel lanes of Lexington and the speed of traffic. It appears that the amount of information proposed to be on the sign is really the factor dictating the variance, as the area of the signs or the height from the ground of the lower sign have not changed from previously proposed conforming signs on this property. -Menu Board Sign at drive-up service - The proposed sign is a standard sign used by Burger King at all of their facilities. The sign is located behind the building and not visible from Lexington Avenue. The height increase is related to the position of patrons in their cars and the area increase is related to the amount of information on the menu and letter size. The top 16 inches of the sign display pictures of food available and are not merely informational. -Low Clearance Sign at entrance to drive-up lane - The sign is installed as a deterrent to vehicles over 8'6" high, which may be damaged and may damage the building overhand if allowed to enter the drive-up land. This sign is installed for patron/building safety and is not visible from Lexington Avenue. Bergly explained that requests for sign variances are treated somewhat differently in so far as consideration should be given for surrounding conditions as well as those on site and impact of the sign variance on neighboring • properties. The Planner reviewed the recommendations for action to approve or deny variances for each sign individually, as noted in his report of 12-7-88. The Board of Appeals at their meeting of December 3, 1988, recommended denial of the variances for the Business Sign at the entrance, and approval of the requested variances for the Menu Board and Low Clearance Signs, stating rationale for the recommendations in the minutes of the meeting. Commission questioned if the top portion of the Menu Board, which displayed food, was optional. Bergly stated the applicant advises it is all one sign; in comparison, the Menu Board sign at McDonald's is 4.7 ft. , within Ordinance requirements and displays pictures of food products. Commission questioned if the other business proposed for the site would be allowed a separate free-standing sign. Bergly advised the other business could put signage on their building, however, placement on a sign on this pylon would have to comply with the overall sign regulations for the site. He stated this is a unique situation in the respect it is all one property not divided for the different tenants on the site; one business sign is allowed per street frontage since it is one site. . Commission expressed concern that approval of the variance would impose limitations on the next business to occupy the site. Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, December 7, 1988 Page 4 CASE #88-35 (Cont'd) Dennis Trisler, President of Northland Construction Management and representing Burger King, stated due to the depth of the lot the additional directional sign is necessary for safe traffic flow, and the low clearance sign variance is essential to protect the • patron vehicles and the building. Trisler stated the Commission should keep in mind the definition of "hardship" and explained the restraint of trade could define a hardship as created by a Municipal body by imposing a hardship on a developer. It was his opinion the sign Ordinance requirements imposes a hardship on the Burger King development in this particular situation. Trisler advised he had re-measured the McDonald's menu board sign and found it to be 5.9 ft. , which exceeds the Ordinance requirements of 4 ft. He stated the McDonald's menu board also displays pictures of the food products and requested the same consideration be given to the Burger King request. Trisler noted the Blue Fox Inn, located west of this site has a "reader board" sign located on its pylon business sign. He stated the developer elected to have one pylon sign, rather than split the lot and allow two signs. He also referred to the landscaping requirements imposed with the approval of the site plan; it was indicated that the landscaping may hinder the visual impact of the Burger King site when fully matured. Trisler stated he would be agreeable to accept an adjustment to 22 ft. rather than 24 ft. in the business sign height variance request; he noted the Blue Fox Inn sign is at 22 ft. He agreed partially with the the Board of Appeals recommendation to approve a variance of 12 sq. ft. , however, he preferred to maintain the reader board on the pylon sign. He also noted the Blue Fox Inn sign • is a total of 128 sq. ft. in area; the Burger King sign and the unidentified tenant sign would be 16 sq. ft. less than the Blue Fox Inn sign. He stated it is his understanding a permit was not issued for the reader board sign at the Blue Fox Inn. Member Zehm advised that the Blue Fox Inn sign height variance precedes the passage date of the current Sign Ordinance. Member Probst commented that during his one year of service on the Planning Commission on more than one occasion a site plan has been received from a developer without a signage plan and upon submission of the signage plan variances are requested. He stated that the developers are given copies of the Sign Ordinance and should adhere to the regulations. Probst also stated that the applicant has indicated the landscaping may hinder the sign visibility when plantings mature. Probst is of the opinion the landscape design should be redesigned so as not to obstruct sign visibility and should not be given Commission consideration relative to the requested variances. He suggested the recommendations for approval and denial of the requested variances, as outlined by the Planner in his report of 12-7-88, should be considered by the Commission. There was Commission discussion relative to the equality of the sign sizes for the two business occupants on the site. Curtis stated he would be receptive to a reasonable height variance to allow equal tenant signage, however, he would prefer not to have a reader board included. Malone stated the two tenants should be responsible for negotiating the sign • sizes. Trisler advised that C.G. Rein, the site developer, and Burger King have agreed on the proposed signage plan. He stated that the other tenants have not discussed any variance requests nor disagreed with the signage plan. Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, December 7, 1988 Page 5 CASE #88-35 (Cont'd) Malone referred Commission to the minutes of the June 1, 1988 Commission meeting, page 4, which relates to approval of the Site Plan and states: "Member Malone commented that if action were taken to recommend approval of the application it would not be implied that • Commission would consider request for signage in excess of the requirements." Zehm moved, seconded by McGraw, that Commission recommend to Council denial of Case #88-35, Sign Variances for the Burger King, Lexington Avenue, Northland Construction Management, and the applicant follow the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. In discussion, Probst commented that the directional sign and low clearance sign are essential to the operation of the business and suggested reconsideration be given for approval of those sign variances. Probst stated he would not be opposed to forward the recommendations of the Planner to Council, as outlined in his report of 12-7-88, for all the variances requested. Carlson moved, seconded by McGraw to amend the motion to recommend denial of the variances for the business sign and menu board and approval of the low clearance sign and additional directional sign. Trisler advised that the menu board sign is necessary to the operation of the business and would not be readable without the variance. The amendment and second to the original motion were withdrawn. The original motion and second were withdrawn. Malone moved, seconded by Zehm, that Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for three directional signs, Case #88-35, at • the Burger King location on Lexington Avenue, based on the traffic pattern on the site requiring that patrons be clearly directed to their destination and that all signs proposed are necessary to achieve orderly movement of vehicles on the site. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) Malone moved, seconded by Carlson, that Commission recommend to Council approval of the height and area variances for the Low Clearance Sign, Case #88-35, on the basis that this is a safety related issue. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) There was Commission discussion relative to the height of the menu board sign proposed as related to the McDonald's menu board; Trisler advised he would be agreeable to reduce the size of the Burger King sign height to compare with McDonald's so the variances do not differ. Bergly stated the comparison between the two establishments would be fair and it would be appropriate to cite the variance comparison in the Commission action; he advised the Blue Fox would be a different situation. Piotrowski moved, seconded by Probst, that Commission recommend to Council approval of a 5.9 ft. height variance and area variance for the Burger King Menu Board Sign, Case #88-35, based on the fact the sign is not visible from Lexington Avenue and does not visually impact adjacent properties. Motion carried. (Piotrowski, Probst, Malone, Curtis, McGraw and Zehm voting in favor; Carlson opposed) (6-1) • Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, December 7, 1988 Page 6 CASE #88-35 (Cont'd) Malone moved, seconded by Probst, that Commission recommend to Council denial of the requested variances for the free-standing Business Sign, Case #88-35, based on the fact there is no identifiable hardship in this case, the developer of the site was specifically • advised at the Commission meeting held June 1, 1988, that the Commission approval of the site plan did not imply approval of sign variance requests, and this situation does not warrant the requested variances. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) CASE #88-36, SITE Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 12-7-88, relative PLAN REVIEW, HANS to the application for a Site Plan Review for Hans Hagen HAGEN CORP. HDQTRS, Homes Corporate Headquarters, located on County Road E-2 CO. RD. E-2 & and Cleveland Avenue. CLEVELAND AVE. Bergly explained the applicant is requesting approval for an 8,000 sq. ft. office building to be used as the corporate headquarters of a land development business. He stated the site is actually in two parts and the applicant owns both parcels of land; he noted it is a very attractive building site. The Planner stated the building proposed would be one-story facing Cleveland and County Road E-2 and two-stories facing the creek. The building would be mostly glass exposure on the front and rear of the building. Bergly advised all of the Ordinance requirements are met in terms of setback, parking and open space; the site is proposed at a low intensity of development. He stated access drives are proposed from both abutting streets. Bergly noted no specific signs are proposed at this time with the exception of one designated for a "future sign" location. He pointed out the sign as shown • would be in violation of the Ordinance as it does not meet front yard setback requirements. He explained the site is large and there are alternatives for the sign location which would not require a variance. The Planner advised the Village Engineer has reviewed the grading plan and finds no problems with it. Bergly stated the grading plan has been submitted to the RCWD and it is his understanding there have been no problems identified. Bergly advised there is currently no sanitary sewer service provided to the site due to topographic and elevation conditions. He explained sanitary sewer service is provided near the intersection of County Road E-2 and New Brighton Road, however, to service this area would require lift stations. Bergly explained the Engineer is studying the feasibility of providing sewer service to this area and the land immediately south of the site, as both are affected by the same topographic conditions. Bergly discussed the landscaping plan submitted and noted it would be more appropriate to consider a similar treatment along the frontage of the entire site by adding a second row or increasing the number of Norway Pines and substituting a more densely structured conifer. He explained there may be some problems with the proposed Pin Oaks shown on the plan, due to their growth habit, and suggested Red Oaks be substituted. It was also recommended the sod around the river rock planting beds adjacent to the entrance walk may be difficult to maintain and suggested expanding the beds to meet the curb line or removing them a suitable distance from the curb to allow for easy mowing and edging. Bergly suggested the removal of the Thornless Hawthorns from the front of the building and along the parking lot and substituting the cost of these small trees with more substantial plantings along the abutting streets. Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, December 7, 1988 Page 7 CASE #88-36 (Cont'd) The Planner outlined his recommendations for approval of the site plan subject to: 1. The options for sanitary sewer service by investigated by the Engineer in conjunction with the owners/developers of this parcel and the similar land to the south, so that the ramifications of cost and long-term serviceability are understood by the land owners and the Village. 2. The sign location shown on the landscaping plan is not approved as part of the present action and suggest the applicant relocate the sign to meet the Ordinance setback requirements. 3. The Landscaping plan be revised as recommended by the Planner in his report of 12-7-88. 4. The site grading plan, including erosion control be approved by the Village Engineer and Watershed District prior to grading. Bergly explained the applicant has submitted a lighting plan for the site which is designed for a low level of lighting on the site. He stated the plan is satisfactory and recommended approval of the lighting plan as submitted. Hans Hagen, applicant, was present and displayed a diagram of the building design. He explained the upper floor would be utilized for office space and the lower level as a decorating studio. Hagen advised the second site, east of the proposed building, was purchased to remain as open space and a buffer for the adjacent residential area. The building front and sides would be constructed of brick and glass and the rear portion of redwood as a natural buffer for the residential properties adjacent to the rear of this parcel. • Hagen agreed with the Planner's comments on the landscaping and sign; he advised he would work with the Planner to revise the landscaping as suggested. He also advised he has met with the surveyor to determine if more of the natural environment can be saved. Hagen explained the utilities installation are a concern; he had planned to install a lift station for this site and proposed construction would have been done along County Road E-2 and Cleveland right-of-way rather than installed in the stream, to maintain the environmental value of the site. He requested the Village Engineer consider installation in this manner when reviewing the utilities installation. Commission questioned if both parcels of land are zoned for business uses and what the property to the south is zoned. Bergly advised both parcels owned by the applicant are zoned B-2 General Business District and the southerly property is zoned R-2 Single & Two-Family Residential. Member Probst questioned if handicapped access is provided to the lower level of the building; suggested Village staff review the plans for Code compliance prior to issuance of a building permit. Hagen advised handicapped access was provided by means of a pathway to the lower level of the building; interior building space did not allow for installation of an elevator. The issue had been discussed extensively as Hagen Homes employees handicapped persons. Commission questioned the responsibility of the City for installation of a lift station at this site. Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, December 7, 1988 Page 8 CASE #88-36 (Cont'd) Bergly advised inquiries had been received at the Village Hall relative to development of the site immediately south of the Hagen property; in discussions with the Engineer it was mentioned that possibility one lift station in this location could be done more • efficiently than two. He stated the developers and Village staff would discuss the feasibility of installation of utilities. Hans Hagen advised he would prefer to begin the project as soon as possible, however, there is some flexibility to the construction schedule. Commission questioned if there would be mechanical equipment located on the roof of the building. Hagen advised he personally objects to roof mounted equipment and would be agreeable to placement of such items at ground level. Commission questioned where the trash dumpster would be located on the site. Hagen advised he has not dealt with that issue to date; he suggested the probable location would be on the southerly portion of the building and could be screened with the same brick material used for the building construction. He agreed that both items, the mechanical equipment located on ground level and trash/screening, could be included as conditions of approval. Probst moved, seconded by Zehm, that Commission recommend approval of Case 88-36, Site Plan Review for Corporate Headquarters Office building, Hans Hagen Homes, Cleveland and County Road E-2, conditioned upon: 1. The options for sanitary sewer service being investigated by the Village Engineer in conjunction with the owners/developers of this parcel and the owners/developers of the similar parcel to the south, as outlined in the Planner's report of 12-7-88. 2. The Sign location on site be relocated to meet Ordinance setback requirements and approved by the Planner. 3. The Landscape Plan be revised in as recommended in the Planner's report of 12-7-88 and approved by the Planner. 4. The site grading plan, including erosion control, be approved by the Village Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District prior to grading. 5. No rooftop heating/air conditioning mechanical equipment be permitted. 6. Any trash/dumpster shall be screened in accordance with the Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) Member Piotrowski left at 9: 10 p.m. DISC: ROSEVILLE Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 12-7-88, relative COMPREHENSIVE PLAN to the City of Roseville Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Planner noted the Metropolitan Council staff has expressed concerns regarding the runoff water quality into Lake Josephine; to date the Met Council staff has not submitted their review of the proposal to Bergly. Bergly recommended that any action by Commission include a concern for runoff water quality as expressed in he Metropolitan Council's review. Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, December 7, 1988 Page 9 AMENDMENT (Cont'd) Commission questioned if the DNR or RCWD would be responsible for invoking any restrictions relative to water quality. The Planner advised the City of Roseville would have restrictions as to the amount and quality of storm water that can be released into storm sewers and wetlands. It was determined that RCWD may be responsible for reviewing water quality. Zehm moved, seconded by Malone, that Commission recommend Council support of the proposed City of Roseville Comprehensive Plan Amendment and express concern regarding the runoff water quality into Lake Josephine as identified by the Metropolitan Council staff in their review of the proposal, and further recommends that Council direct the Village Engineer to review the plan and the Metropolitan Council concerns and draft a letter which outlines any concerns the City may have relative to runoff and water quality to the Metropolitan Council. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) COUNCIL REPORT Former Councilmember Winiecki introduced Councilmember JoAnn Growe; Winiecki reported on items of interest to Commission. DISC; SIGN ORD Winiecki commented on the Council directive to recommend the Planner review the Sign Ordinance, since numerous variance requests are received. She explained that she was a member of the Committee which drafted the current Sign Ordinance and a review of all signage in the City was done prior to determining the requirements. • Winiecki stated it would be her opinion the Sign Ordinance should remain as is; it has been her personal experience that if the Ordinance is changed to allow larger signs the variance requests would still continue. Bergly stated the variance requests for signs are given consideration for unique circumstances, effect on adjacent properties, and variances should be granted only for those situations. ADJOURNMENT Zehm moved, seconded by Malone, that the meeting be adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) Robert Curtis, Chairman •