HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-05-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes AGENDA
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1988 - 7:30 P.M.
VILLAGE HALL
1. Call to Order and Roll Call .
2. Approval of Minutes of September 7, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting.
3. Case No. 88-09 Approval of the Final Plat for Valentine Hills No. 2 ,
David Dnistran.
4. Discussion of Sketch Plans prepared for the Winiecki property in the
northwest quadrant of Old Highway 10 and I-694.
5. Information regarding minor change in Burger King Site Plan at
37-51 North Lexington (no Planner' s review) .
6. Discuss Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing regulations
for NE I-694/I-35W Study Area.
7. Council report.
8. Adjournment.
*********************************************
PLEASE CALL THE VILLAGE OFFICE
IF YOU WILL NOT BE APLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING
633-5676
*********************************************
MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, October 5, 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, Peter Martin, Raymond
McGraw, Calvin Meury, Scott Petersen, Dennis Probst,
Barbara Piotrowski and David Carlson.
Absent: Dorothy Zehm.
Also Present: Planner John Bergly, Councilmember Jeanne Winiecki, Clerk
Administrator Gary Berger and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago.
APPROVE MINUTES Member Probst suggested a language change in the minutes
under Case #88-26; the first sentence in paragraph 2, the
word "operation" should be changed to "operate".
Moved by Malone, seconded by Probst, that the Minutes of
the September 7, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting be approved with the
correction suggested by Probst. Motion carried unanimously. (9-0)
CASE #88-09; FINAL Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 10-5-88 relative to
PLAT, VALENTINE the application for Final Plat Review, Valentine Hills
HILLS NO. 2, DAVID No. 2, Dnistran.
The Planner explained the final plat is identical to the preliminary plat
approved by the City on 6-13-88 and the first diagram attached to his report
shows the final plat as it will be recorded. He advised the "dashed" line shown
on the plat around the area indicated as the "wetland" area merely designates
what is high land and what is low land. Bergly stated the surveyor is required by
law to show what areas are "wetlands" on plats.
Member Meury questioned if this area would be considered the restricted area as
outlined in the protective covenant document.
Bergly advised it is not; it is a 900 ft. contour and merely marks what appears
to be "wetland" area not the true flood plain.
The Planner stated the second diagram indicates the 100 year flood line at 902.4
ft. of elevation, that is the area expected to be reached by water in the 100
year storm.
Bergly noted the last diagram attached to his report shows the area identified as
a drainage easement to be protected from encroachment by filling or building;
this is the area identified in the restrictive covenant document.
Commission questioned the grading on the site.
The Planner advised a survey was done after the initial grading had been
completed and it was found that the survey was not identical with the topography
shown on the preliminary plat documents submitted. He explained the site was
re-surveyed after the soil had settled in the wetter areas and the site was
regraded. Bergly stated the survey submitted with the final plat is recent and
accurately shows the condition of the site.
• Commission was referred to a report from Engineer Barry Peters dated 10-4-88
which states he has reviewed the final plat, grading plan and restricted covenant
area as submitted by the applicant. The report advises the developer has
satisfied Peters concerns relative to maintaining ponding capacities, and,
therefore, the Engineer approves the final plat and restricted covenant areas as
shown.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 10-5-88
Page 2
CASE #88-09 (Cont'd) Planner Bergly stated the final plat is in conformance
with the original preliminary plat, it meets all of the
area, width and depth requirements and no variances are required. He advised that
• a recommendation for approval should include the conditions as listed in the
Planner's report, page 2, under "conclusions".
Member Martin questioned Item 8, page 3 of the Restrictive Covenant document, as
it relates to limited enforcement by injunctive remedy rather than typical
restrictions which also allow other damages and other remedies. He asked if there
was a particular reason why it was done in this manner; suggested the Attorney
review this item. Martin expressed concern that Item 8 coupled with Item 9, same
page, which states all liability ceases when the property is sold by an
individual fee owner; he stated this may be a "cut-off" where the developer or
subsequent owners could encroach on it, in the event the property is sold the
next owner would be forced to fix the problem and would not have recourse against
the previous owner who created the problem. Martin stated the City would have the
same problem and could not take action against the person who actually violated
the covenant they could only take action against the land. He advised this is
unusual and he has never seen it done in this manner.
Martin explained that if someone encroaches on the restricted area and causes
flooding that significantly damages other properties, the owners may want the
right to pursue other remedies.
Bergly advised the applicant's legal counsel has been in contact with Attorney
Lynden; the Planner has not discussed the document with Lynden
Chairman Curtis explained the City Attorney will review the minutes and could
address Martin's concerns; he also noted a recommendation for approval would be
• conditioned upon the City Attorney reviewing and approving the document.
Member Malone expressed concern relative to Item 6, page 3; it states the
covenants provide benefit to each other lot with Block 1, Valentine Hills #2; he
questioned if these benefits should extend beyond that property. He questioned if
a property owner beyond this area were damaged would they come to the City for
remedy, as the City has the right to enforce the restrictive covenants. Malone
suggested the Attorney review this item.
Malone also questioned Item 4, page 2; which discusses the right to construct a
retaining wall within the non-restricted area of the lot so to allow the owner to
fill upon the lot. Malone commented there are other City restrictions regarding
filling on property and suggested additional language be added to the paragraph
such as ". . .subject to the usual City provisions concerning fill and excavation
on property."
Petersen moved, seconded by Probst, that Commission
recommend to Council approval of Case #88-09, Final Plat of Valentine Hills No.
2, as submitted by the applicant and subject to the following conditions:
1. The Village Attorney's review and approval of the title information and
restrictive covenants.
2. The applicant's execution of the plat and recording with Ramsey County
within 60 days after the date of final Council approval.
• Motion carried unanimously. (9-0)
CASE #88-30; SKETCH Commission was referred to the Planner's report of 10-5-88
PLANS, WINIECKI relative to two sketch plans for development of the
PROP. , C. COOK Winiecki property located on Old Highway 10.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 10-5-88
Page 3
CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) Planner Bergly explained the applicant had prepared two
alternative plans; one for a single-family plat and one
for an apartment project on the eight-acre site.
• Bergly stated the applicant is requesting a response from the Village on the
density, type of development, park dedication, etc. prior to preparing more
detailed development plans. He noted exhibits showing the proposed options were
included for Commission review.
The Planner discussed the relationship of the Winiecki property to the land study
area being discussed by the Task Force.
Bergly explained the single-family plat proposed has traditional single-family
lots platted in accordance with the R-2 District requirements; lot widths, area
and depth. The plat proposes two cul-de-sacs with lots surrounding and four lots
fronting on Old Highway 10 and Parkshore Drive. The Planner indicated possible
re-contouring of the land which would move the high hill existing across the
center of the land and relocate the hill adjacent to the I-694 right-of-way; the
hill would then serve as a berm for the property owners. Bergly stated the
developer has indicated that was his intention if the single-family plat is
pursued.
The Planner reviewed the multi-family proposal for apartments which includes two
buildings with exterior garages and parking located around the buildings. Bergly
explained t 1 d he applicant is proposing a density of 8.25 units per acre if the
P PP P P g Y
whole tract is considered and if the farmstead is deleted from the tract the
density calculates at 10 units per acre. He stated the 8.25 units per acre
calculation is halfway between the R-3 and R-4 density requirements.
• Commission was referred to the Comprehensive Guide Plan which slates the entire
area of the site for medium density residential development and lower density
residential to the north of the site. Bergly advised there is an apartment
development directly north of the site and townhouses are proposed in the area;
the overall density of the McGuire development is 4.5 units per acre for the
total tract. He stated the development was accomplished under the PUD concept
which allows for varying densities.
Bergly discussed the park dedication considerations; he outlined the existing
parkland and explained it is the intention was to obtain additional land from the
business development to the west, around the wetland area, to provide a buffer
between the residential land to the east and business/industrial development to
the west.
Commission questioned if the land study development contemplates a roadway
through this site.
Planner Bergly stated the road was discussed and the idea was rejected by Council
on four different occasions; also the Traffic Engineer has indicated the road
would not provide much relief from traffic.
Charles Cook, applicant, stated in his search for land to develop apartments in
Arden Hills he was informed the City has not favored apartment complex
development in the past and prefers densities not greater than 4.5 units per
acre. He explained the apartment development would not be economically feasible
• on this site at the 4.5 density. Cook stated he has developed single-family
subdivisions in the past, however, it is his opinion the apartment complex would
be a better use for this site given the adjacent uses. He requested comments from
the Commission.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 10-5-88
Page 4
CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) Commission comments were as follows:
-Although the Comprehensive Plan contemplates higher density in this area, in
• the past the City has been resistant to apartment development.
-Questioned if the cul-de-sac streets provide for snow removal; Bergly stated
the cul-de-sacs proposed are standard size.
-Apartment development would be appropriate for the site with the highway
adjacent, 8.25 units per acre density is higher than preferable.
-Detached garages were not favored; preference would be underground garages.
-Suggested if detached garages were to be utilized they be placed in the area
adjacent to the highway, possibly constructed into the berm at that
location, and the apartment buildings be relocated to screen the garages.
-Questioned why the farmsite was excluded from plat; Cook explained the farm
is part of an estate and will be retained by the Winiecki family.
-Questioned what materials would be used for construction of the apartment
buildings; Cook advised they would be three-story all brick units.
-Favored townhouse development rather than apartments; Cook advise the
Commission the market was not favorable to townhomes and he is not
interested in pursuing a townhouse development.
-Expressed concern relative to traffic on Old Highway 10; questioned if a
signal and road improvements would be required.
Planner Bergly advised a park dedication of land would require the applicant to
dedicate approximately one-acre; this would affect the density calculations. He
advised the Park Director has indicated he would prefer a land dedication rather
than a monetary resolution of the park dedication.
Bergly the Commission consider the quality and type of development rather than
• the density at this time.
After discussion, Commission concurred they were not opposed to an apartment
development and requested the applicant would need to address the following
concerns expressed: Specific density is not as much of a concern as the quality
of materials and layout of the buildings; plan should be consistent with the City
Comprehensive Plan; preference would be for underground garages rather than
detached garages or relocation of the detached garages in the proposed bermed
area where they would be sufficiently screened by the berm on the highway side
and by the buildings on the street side; and consider land dedication to meet
park dedication requirement.
Charles Cook indicated the underground garages would be more costly and he would
undertake a market study to determine if the market would justify the higher
quality building. Cook stated if the study determined the need for this type of
development he would pursue that direction. He thanked Commission for their time
and consideration of this matter.
MINOR SITE PLAN Planner Bergly reviewed a minor site plan change in the
CHANGE; BURGER Burger King site on Lexington Avenue. He explained the
KING, LEXINGTON applicant is proposing to construct a 10 ft. x 17 ft.
AVENUE enclosure to the rear of the building and relocate a
walk-in cooler from the interior of the building to the
enclosure.
Bergly stated the enclosure would be constructed with the same brick as the
building and appear to be a continuation of the building; the cooler would be
accessible from the interior of the building. He explained the interior seating
capacity would not be increased and the interior area where the cooler was
located would be used for dry storage.
The Planner also noted the handicapped parking stall would be moved closer to the
building entrance. He advised these are considered minor changes and presented to
Commission for informational purposes only.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 10-5-88
Page 5
DRAFT ZONING ORD. Planner Bergly referred Commission to the draft Zoning
AMENDMENT; LAND Ordinance Amendment establishing regulations for the NE
STUDY AREA I-694/35W Study Area.
• Bergly gave a brief overview of the Task Force meetings and the informal meeting
with the property owners in this area which was held on 10-3-88.
The Planner advised the Task Force and Council had reviewed the draft extensively
and the document presented this evening represents all the suggestions and
changes discussed at the meetings.
Bergly reviewed the districts outlined in the ordinance amendment, prohibited
uses, and development standards.
Member Martin questioned the minimum landscaping cost related to building height;
subdivision 6, (e) (8) . He stated the ordinance may be in effect for a long
period of time prior to development and suggested the cost be specified by
percentage and would fluctuate with the cost of the project.
Member Malone advised the committee had studied several other formulas that did
not work when calculated; this method appears to be workable.
The Planner suggested it could be specified related to 1988 building costs and a
specific index. He indicated these figures were recommended by quality
developers.
Member Probst, Chair of the Task Force Committee, stated the goal of the
ordinance amendment is to place the City in a position to negotiate with
• developers. He advised the Council would have to determine the extent of City
participation and proposals could not be expected until a policy has been set.
Probst stated there clearly appears to be developer interest, however, the
question most often asked is what, if any, participation is the City willing to
involve itself in to accomplish the goal.
Probst requested Commission endorsement of the draft zoning ordinance amendment
and a request be forwarded to Council to establish November 2, the Regular
Planning Commission meeting, as the official date of Public Hearing on the
Rezoning of the area and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Bergly stated the Land Study document would be submitted to the Metropolitan
Council to support the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the foundation for
the Ordinance amendment; in discussion with Met Council there does not appear to
be any problem with the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, it would be a minor
change.
Councilmember Winiecki suggested a language change on page 7, item (j) (1) ,
relative to lighting; ". . . .so as not to be visible from adjoining and residential
area across the lake."
Probst advised it was his intention to "tighten" the architectural aspects of the
ordinance.
Bergly advised he had sent a letter to the Clerk Administrator requesting a
traffic study be accomplished to determine what can be done to realign the
roadway and enhance the access at the Arden Hills quadrant of Highway 96 and
I35W; he recommended the study be done prior to the public hearing. He also
recommended the traffic engineer study how improvement of the bridge across I-35W
would increase capacity.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 10-5-88
Page 6
DRAFT ORD. (Cont'd) Moved by Meury, seconded by Malone, that Commission pass
the Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing
regulations for the NE I-694/I-35W Study Area and forward same to Council with a
• request that Council declare a Public Hearing on the Rezoning of this area and an
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to be held at the Regular Planning Commission
meeting, Wednesday, November 2, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. , at the Village Hall. Motion
carried unanimously. (9-0)
Commission discussed procedures and strategies that need to be accomplished to
move forward with the development of this area.
Malone moved, seconded by Meury, that Commission request
Council consider developing a policy for the City with reference to the Gateway
Business District, which would include:
1. Adopting the Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing regulations for the
NE I-694/I-35W Study Area.
2. Attaching the Task Force Report concerning the district in question to the
Comprehensive Plan as an amendment to the plan.
3. The City declare the area reviewed by the Task Force as a Development
District.
4. The City consider the establishment of a policy which would allow the
creation of Tax Increment Financing Districts within the development
district and consider establishment of policies concerning the extent of City
participation; guidelines for these policies to include but not be limited to
developer financing of improvements on a "pay as you go" basis and payouts not
to exceed 12 years.
5. The City consider establishing a policy of cooperating with developers to the
• extent of assisting with lot consolidations or condemnation proceedings within
the bounds of the development district.
In discussion, Malone explained the steps are sequential and should be
accomplished in a timely fashion so as not to hamper development in that area.
Martin stated at the point the rezoning occurs the City should continue with the
entire process; he expressed concern relative to the condemnation process. He
explained the "public purpose" concept is needed for condemnation and there are
differences of option as to the definition of "public purpose".
Commission concurred with recommending Council consideration to proceed with all
elements outlined by the motion and noted that there is a definite need for the
Council to define the extent of City participation.
Petersen commented that he preferred to see the area develop naturally without
City involvement; he did not favor City participation.
Motion carried. (Malone, Meury, Curtis, McGraw, Probst, Piotrowski and Carlson
voting in favor; Petersen opposed; Martin abstained) (7-1-1)
Member Martin left at 9:45 p.m.
HIGHWAY 96 STUDY Chairman Curtis referred Commission to the Highway 96 Task
Force Study report distributed to members this evening. He
briefly reviewed the study and explained the report has no major impact nor any
major changes along Highway 96 in Arden Hills . He stated the Highway 96 Task
Force Committee has requested comments from Arden Hills regarding the study.
Curtis suggested the members review the report and if any concerns are identified
Commission should contact Council.
Commission concurred to request Council defer comment on the study until their
Regular Meeting held Monday, October 31, 1988.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 10-5-88
Page 7
COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Winiecki reported on items of interest to
the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT Malone moved, seconded by Meury, that the meeting be
adjourned at 10: 15 p.m.
Robert Curtis, Chairman