Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-07-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. VILLAGE HALL 1. Call to Order and Roll Call . 2. Approval of Minutes of August 3, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting. 3. Public Hearing Case No. 88-26, Special Use Permit for "Institutional Housing" at 3200 Hamlin Avenue; Little Brothers/Friends of the Elderly, represented by John R. Hoffman. 4. Public Hearing Case No. 88-27, Special Use Permit to allow installation and operation of a VSAT dish antenna on the building at 4105 Lexington Avenue North; J. A. Doerrer and Daughter Agency, Farmers Insurance Group, 4105 Lexington Avenue North. 5. Case No. 88-04, Lot split and variances for Lot 3, Rohleder' s Home and Garden Acres at 1960 West County Road E2; John Robinson, applicant. 6. Review and recommend action on Memo for Variances" regarding . application, review, and action procedure and scheduling. 7. Status Report and Discussion - Land Study I-694 & I-35W. 8. Council Report. 9. 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, September 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, Peter Martin, Raymond McGraw, Calvin Meury, Scott Petersen, Dennis Probst, Dorothy Zehm and Dave Carlson. Absent: Barbara Piotrowski. Also Present: Planner John Bergly, Councilmember Jeanne Winiecki, Clerk Administrator Gary Berger and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. APPROVE MINUTES Petersen moved, seconded by Meury, that the Minutes of the August 3, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting be approved as submitted. Motion carried. (Petersen, Meury, Curtis, Martin, McGraw, Probst, Zehm and Carlson voting in favor; Malone abstained) (8-0-1) -PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE #88-26; SUP The Public Hearing was opened at 7:36 p.m. Deputy Clerk INSTITUTIONAL HSING. Iago verified the publication of the Notice of Hearing 3200 HAMLINE AVE, in the New Brighton Bulletin on Wednesday, August 24 and LITTLE BROS/FRIENDS mailing the same date. OF THE ELDERLY Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 9-7-88 which outlined the proposal to operate an institutional housing facility on a 4-acre site in an R-1 District. He explained the facility would be utilized by the non-profit organization to • accommodate the uses listed below which have been specifically identified by the executive director of the organization: 1. Daytime recreational activities -- Groups of 5-30 elderly invited for picnics, gardening or playing cards: three days per week from May through September and one day per week during other months. 2. Vacation sessions -- Groups of 3-10 elderly invited to sit outside, fish, play cards, eat, etc. ; two days to two weeks from May through September, average use approximately 15 to 20 days per month. 3. Staff and volunteer retreats and meetings -- Groups of 5 to 30 attending approximately once per month. The ratio of staff/volunteers to elderly ranges from one staff/volunteer to one elderly, to one staff/volunteer to five elderly, depending on the activity. The Planner advised very minimal site approvals were made at this time; a 50-foot extensions of the pathway and a small patio between the house and lake are proposed. He advised the applicant if further improvements are proposed an amendment to the SUP would be required. Bergly reviewed the considerations from his memorandum citing the Bradford will leaving the property to the Little Brothers/Friends of the Elderly and specifying the property be maintained for use as a vacation home for underprivileged and elderly persons to enjoy the out-of-doors in a natural setting. He noted that on March 30, 1987 the Village Council determined the proposed use would be appropriately classified in the "Institutional Housing" category of the Zoning • Ordinance; it requires a Special Use Permit in the R-1 District. Bergly further explained a caretaker would live on the premises at all times. He also noted during the summer months, when visitors are on the grounds, the dense tree cover on the site edges provides a natural separation from neighbors and Hamline Avenue. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, September 7, 1988 Page 2 CASE #88-26 (Cont'd) The Planner stated if approval of the SUP is granted by the Village, the action should contain a statement of the reasons why the special use should be permitted; he referred Commission to page 2 of his report which lists four reasons. Bergly also explained the recommendation • for approval should contain conditions relating to the use, which are listed on page 2 of his memorandum of 9-7-88. John Hoffman, Attorney representing the Bradford estate, advised at this time they are considering only groups of 3 to 4 elderly for vacation/overnight sessions for periods of 3 to 4 days at the maximum, as listed under REQUEST, Item #2 of the Planner's memorandum. Hoffman explained the facility may not be appropriate for larger groups or longer sessions; he requested the application be amended to reflect the above. Members questioned the limited parking on site and if the elderly would be transported by bus or automobiles. Mary Quirk, Executive Director of the organization, advised the site has been utilized in this manner for the last ears eight and g y parking along the driveway and street has not posed any problems. She stated they have not contemplated changing the site to accommodate a parking area at this time. Quirk advised the elderly have problems boarding and exiting buses; vehicles drop them off close to the home and then park along the drive and street to allow for the next drop off. There was discussion relative to further expansion of the site. Mary Quirk advised the activities would remain as listed in the request; she stated if there are plans to increase activities or improve the site they would make application to review and amend the Special Use Permit. There was discussion regarding the •$ g parking situation and Commission questioned if the City had received complaints relative to parking in this area and if the recommendation for approval included a condition to avoid on-street parking would it hinder the applicant. Mary Quirk advised they would be required to amend the proposal and add a parking lot; she noted it was the intention of the organization to have the site remain as it currently exists. Planner Bergly advised the site as it exists could accommodate six or seven vehicles near the garage area and along the driveway; there is a substantial shoulder along the street. Deputy Clerk Iago advised she was not aware of any complaints regarding parking on Hamline or at the site. Commission also discussed the temporary sign that is utilized on the garage to direct persons to the site. The Caretaker advised the sign is only utilized on a temporary basis to direct persons to the site and is not permanently placed on the garage. Chairman Curtis asked if there were any comments from the floor. Ed Schumacher, 3140 North Hamline, stated he respected work of the organization • however he expressed opposition to the proposal. He stated his concern was related to any expansion of the site, setting precedent in the area and the possibility of site detracting from his property value. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, September 7, 1988 Page 3 CASE #88-26 (Cont'd) Tom Lynch, 3220 North Hamline, stated he would like to see the noxious weeds and debris cleaned from the site. He suggested the City be granted an easement for the open creek which flows through the property and is an outlet for Lake Josephine. Lynch state he has no • problem with the present use continuing on the site. The Caretaker for the property advised he would be removing debris during the winter months and remove the noxious weeds. Evelyn and Kay Sexton, 3180 North Hamline, stated they would prefer the use of the site remain the same, with no expansion. Evelyn noted that the activities have been minimal and parking has not been a problem due to the short duration of the visits. Kay stated she would object to a parking lot on the site and agreed that parking has not been a problem. Commission questioned if there was a flat grassy area of land where the vehicles could park on the site; expressed concern relative to mail delivery and pedestrian traffic. After discussion, it was determined that most of the activities on site do not . exceed three to fours hours in duration and the Village Ordinance prohibits parking for more than six hours on the street. Mary Quirk explained there are no more than four or five vehicles parked for overnight activities and they can be accommodated on-site. The Caretaker advised the site has alot of trees and brush that would prohibit on site parking. He noted there would be an annual event at the site on Saturday, 9-10-88, between 12:30 and 3:00 p.m. and invited the Commission to view the parking situation at that time. • Chairman Curtis closed the public hearing at 8: 10 p.m. There was discussion relative to the easement for the open creek; Attorney John Hoffman displayed an abstract which granted an easement to the City. Meury moved, seconded by Zehm, that commission recommend to Council approval of Case #88-26, Special Use Permit Application for "Institutional Housing" at 3200 Hamline Avenue, Little Brothers/Friends of the Elderly, rationale for recommending approval being: 1. The 4.0 acre site is large for a single-family residence and has space to accommodate the proposed use. 2. The site provides natural three cover that effectively separates the home and yard from neighboring homes. 3. The primary activity on site is situated near the center of the site, leaving a distance of approximately 200 feet to the residence on the south and 300 feet to the residence on the north. 4. The property is large enough to be redivided to create seven or eight additional building sites. and Commission recommends approval be conditioned upon the following: 1. The use of the site will be in substantial conformance with the uses stipulated on page 1 the Planner's report of 9-7-88 under "REQUEST" and referred to as 1. Daytime Recreational activities, 2. Vacation sessions, with the numbers being amended to "Groups of 3 to 4 elderly" as requested • by Attorney Hoffman, and 3. Staff and volunteer retreats. 2. Any changes in the site will require an amendment to the Special Use Permit as provided for in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. A resident caretaker shall see that the buildings and grounds are maintained in a manner compatible with the neighborhood. 4. Staff or volunteers shall be on the site at all times that invited visitors are present. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, September 7, 1988 Page 4 CASE #88-26 (Cont'd) Member Martin offered the following friendly amendment , to the motion: 5. The Special Use Permit is subject to review by Planning Commission and .Council in the event objections are received relative to the parking conditions on-site or in the area. Meury and Zehm accepted the amendment. There was discussion relative to the sign placed on the garage on a temporary basis; Planner Bergly advised the sign could be classified as a "directional sign" and would be permitted. Motion carried unanimously. (9-0) CASE #88-27; SUP The Public Hearing was opened at 8:25 ty Cl VSAT DISH ANTENNA Iago verified the publication of the Notice DofuHearingkin 4105 NO. LEXINGTON, the New Brighton Bulletin, August 24th and mailing the J.A. DOERRER INS. same date. Planner Bergly advised he had tried to view the antenna, which was approved by Council for temporary installment, from the Roseville Bank and Land O'Lake's facilities; he was unable to see the antenna from the upper floors of the buildings. The Council approved the installation of the antenna until September 12, 1988, in order to accomplish the Public Hearing which is required for SUP application. Chairman Curtis asked if there were any comments from the floor. No response received. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:25 • p.m. Martin moved, seconded by Zehm, that Commission recommend approval of Case #88-27, Special Use Permit for VSAT Dish Antenna at 4105 North Lexington Avenue, J.A. Doerrer and Daughter Agency, Farmers Insurance Group, subject to the 3 foot by 5 foot antenna being located to the center-rear of the building and it is to project no higher than 6 feet above the roof. Motion carried unanimously. (9-0) There was discussion regarding Commission review of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to satellite dish antennas; Planner Bergly advised the subject appears to be sufficiently covered in the ordinance, however, he noted the definitions are different for transmitting and receiving. He explained the antennas in the applications reviewed recently do both; suggested Commission could recommend an amendment to the definition. CASE #88-04; LOT Planner Bergly reviewed his updated report of 9-7-88, SPLIT, 1960 W. CO. relative to the Lot Split at 1960 W. County Road E-2, RD. E2, ELSETH Eldon Elseth and John Robinson. Bergly referred Commission to the Attorney's letter of 8-31-88 which indicates the Village treats the right-of-way as public ownership and the lot line defines the lot from public right-of-way. He stated the application should be reviewed on the premise that the Robinson/Elseth property line is adjacent to the right-of-way line and variances would be necessary to accomplish their objective. The Planner explained the Lot Area and Lot Width variances that would be required and referred Commission to the Board of Appeals minutes of 8-25-88; they recommended denial (2-1) of the Lot Area Variance. The Board did not consider the other variances due to the fact denial of the lot area variance would automatically make the other requests mute. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, September 7, 1988 Page 5 There was Commission discussion relative to the following: -Expressed concern that adequate assurance could not be supplied that the • applicant would purchase the right-of-way when it becomes available; as recommended by the Village Attorney. -Applicant is requesting the creation of a "new" lot, not a lot of record, that is substandard. -Expressed concern that the County may determine the right-of-way is useful at a future date. -Expressed concern that a precedent would be set in this area. Member Meury quoted the Village Attorney's letter dated 8-31-88: "The City never takes into account for purposes of computing lot area requirements the square footage of adjacent land encumbered by an easement for roadway or alley purposes." Meury stated the Commission is being asked to create an "unbuildable" lot. After discussion, Commission concurred there were numerous encumbrances with the requested lot split and they preferred not to create a substandard lot. Meury moved, seconded by Martin, that Commission recommend to Council denial of Case #88-04, application for a Lot Split at 1960 West County Road E-2, Eldon Elseth and John Robinson, based on the opinion from the Village Attorneythat the city does not take into account adjacent land encumbered by an easement for roadways for purposes of computing lot area requirements and generally past policy of the City has been to not create lots through lot splits which require variances to build upon. Motion carried unanimously. (9-0) RECOMMEND; VARIANCE Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 8-4-88, relative • PROCEDURAL AMENDMENT to recommendations for procedural amendments. Bergly reported the Chair of the Board of Appeals, Zoning Administrator and Planner had reviewed procedures and recommended that variances be divided into two categories with the Board of Appeals reviewing only those requests that are not part of a related action and the Planning Commission reviewing only variance requests that are part of a related action. Member Meury commented that a representative of the Planning Commission should have been present during the discussions for input purposes. Member Malone commented the Board of Appeals would have to be staffed appropriately to review variances and conduct the public hearing process. Bergly noted it would "lighten" the Commission agenda and eliminate the three-step process for applicants. Chairman Curtis stated it does not appear to be a burden to the Commission to review the variances. Member Carlson advised he had gone through the process of applying for a variance and it is tedious for residents. There was discussion relative to the Planning Commission assuming the duties of the Board of Appeals and reviewing all variances to "streamline" the process. . Member Martin noted that the Planning Commission review of variance applications would keep the continuity as the case relates to other actions, i.e. ; site plans, plats, etc. There was discussion relative to notification of neighbors relative to variance requests; the Planner advised the Zoning Code provides for public hearing if deemed necessary. Bergly stated most communities notify adjacent neighbors. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, September 7, 1988 Page 6 VARIANCES (Cont'd) Member Zehm questioned what procedure would be followed if the applicant contests the action of the Council; it is usually sent to the Board of Appeals to resolve. Bergly advised the Board of Appeals is set up to handle variances or to appeal decisions made by the Zoning Administrator. Council is the final Board of Appeals and they may delegate that duty to another body. After discussion, Commission concurred that the process should be "streamlined" and it was time consuming for residents applying for variances. Malone moved, seconded by Meury, that Commission recommend to Council that the activities of the present Board of Appeals be incorporated into and made a part of operation of the Planning Commission as permitted by State Law, to shorten the variance process for residents of the Village. Motion carried. (Malone, Meury, Curtis, Martin, Petersen, Probst, Zehm and Carlson voting in favor; McGraw abstained) (8-0-1) Moved by Probst, seconded by Zehm, that Commission recommend to Council in any case where a public hearing is not deemed necessary the adjacent property owners, including the landowner across the street, be notified of the variance request and that the time frame for submission of applications as recommended in the Planner's memorandum of 8-4-88 be adopted. Motion carried. (Probst, Zehm, Martin, Meury, Petersen, Curtis and Carlson voting in favor; Malone and McGraw abstained) (7-0-2) LAND STUDY; I-694 Planner Bergly reported on Council action approving the I-35W, REZONING initiation of the Rezoning of the Land Study site at • I-694 and I-35 W, Round Lake area. Bergly reviewed his report of 9-7-88 which outlined a schedule for proceeding with the rezoning of the site. There was discussion relative to setting up subcommittee, scheduling subcommittee meetings for the next month, Village Attorney drafting notification to property owners, and the legality of imposing a moratorium. Meury moved, seconded by Zehm, that Commission recommends Council consider authorizing the continuation of the Task Force subcommittee to meet and review rezoning alternatives and adopt the Planner's schedule as outlined in page 2 of his report of 9-7-88, and further, that Commission recommend Council consideration and Attorney's opinion relative to imposing a moratorium on the site. Motion carried unanimously. (9-0) COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Winiecki reported on items of interest to the Commission. SCREENING DUMPSTER; Member Malone questioned the screening of the dumpster at DAYBRIDGE DAYCARE the Daybridge site at Hamline and Highway 96. The Deputy Clerk advised she would refer the matter to the Code Enforcement Officer. ADJOURN Meury moved, seconded by Probst, that the meeting be adjourned at 10:15 p.m. . Robert Curtis, Chairman