HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes AGENDA
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1988 - 7:30 P.M.
VILLAGE HALL
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes of July 6, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Case #88-25, Special Use Permit to install a VSAT "dish"
antenna on Building #2; Control Data Corporation, 4201 North Lexington Avenue.
4. Case No. 88-22 - Site Plan Review and Variance for construction of a parking
lot on Bethel College Campus.
5. Case No. 88-23 - Rear Yard Variance to construct a three-season porch; Gerald
Dreyling, 1377 Eide Circle; Lot 5, Block 1, Eide Terrace.
6. Case No. 88-24 - Height and front yard variance for a free-standing business
sign on the Scherer Brothers Lumber Company, 4797 Highway 10
7. Case No. 88-28 - Site Plan Review for addition to Land O'Lakes Building,
4001 Lexington Avenue North.
8. Case No. 88-27 - Request for a temporary Special Use Permit to install a
"dish" anteanna on the building at 4105 Lexington Avenue North; J.A. Doerrer
and Daughter Agency, Farmers Insurance Group
10 9. Case No. 88-04 - Lot Split at 1960 West County Road E2; Eldon Elseth, owner.
(NOTE: Item tabled March 2, 1988; owner has requested it be on this agenda;
the attorney has not offered his opinion. See attached Planning Memo on this
case. )
10. Council report.
11. Adjournment.
PLEASE CALL THE VILLAGE OFFICE IF YOU WILL
NOTE BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING
633-5676
AGENDA
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS
• WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1988 - 7:30 P.M.
VILLAGE HALL
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes of July 6, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Case #88-25, Special Use Permit to install a VSAT "dish"
antenna on Building #2; Control Data Corporation, 4201 North Lexington Avenue.
4. Case No. 88-22 - Site Plan Review and Variance for construction of a parking
lot on Bethel College Campus.
5. Case No. 88-23 - Rear Yard Variance to construct a three-season porch; Gerald
Dreyling, 1377 Eide Circle; Lot 5, Block 1, Eide Terrace.
6. Case No. 88-24 - Height and front yard variance for a free-standing business
sign on the Scherer Brothers Lumber Company, 4797 Highway 10
7. Case No. 88-28 - Site Plan Review for addition to Land O'Lakes Building,
4001 Lexington Avenue North.
8. Case No. 88-27 - Request for a temporary Special Use Permit to install a
"dish" anteanna on the building at 4105 Lexington Avenue North; J.A. Doerrer
and Daughter Agency, Farmers Insurance Group
9. Case No. 88-04 - Lot Split at 1960 West County Road E2; Eldon Elseth, owner.
(NOTE: Item tabled March 2, 1988; owner has requested it be on this agenda;
the attorney has not offered his opinion. See attached Planning Memo on this
case.)
10. Council report.
11. Adjournment.
PLEASE CALL THE VILLAGE OFFICE IF YOU WILL
NOTE BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING
633-5676
*********************************************************
AGENDA
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1988 - 7:30 P.M.
VILLAGE HALL
1. Call to Order and Roll Call .
2. Approval of Minutes of July 6, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting.
3. Case No. 88-22 Site plan review and variance for construction of
a parking lot on the Bethel College Campus.
4. Case No. 88-23 Rear yard variance to construct a three-season
porch; Gerald Dreyling , 1377 Eide Circle; Lot 5, Block 1, Eide
Terrace.
5. Case No. 88-24 Height and front yard variance for a free-standing
business sign on the Scherer Brothers Lumber Company, 4797 U.S. Hwy. 10.
6. Case No. 88-25 Public hearing on a request for a Special Use Permit
to install a VSAT "dish" antenna on Building #2; Control Data Corporation,
4201 North Lexington Avenue.
7. Case No. 88-27 Public hearing on a request for a Sepcial Use Permit
to install a "dish" antenna on the building at 4105 Lexington Avenue
North; J. A. Doerrer and Daughter Agency, Farmers Insurance Group,
4105 Lexington Avenue North.
8. Case No. 88-28 Site plan review for addition to Land 0' Lakes Building,
4001 Lexington Avenue North.
9. Case No. 88-04 Lot split at 1960 West County Road E2; Eldon Elseth,
owner. Item tabled March 2, 1988; owner has requested it be on
this agenda; the attorney has not offered his opinion. See attached
Planning Memo on this case. )
10. Council report.
11. 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, August 3, 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, Raymond McGraw, Calvin Meury,
Dennis Probst and Barbara Piotrowski. Member Scott
Petersen arrived at 7:35 p.m.
Absent: Paul Malone, Peter Martin, Dorothy Zehm, Scott Carlson
and Councilmember Jeanne Winiecki.
Also Present: Planner John Bergly, Clerk Administrator Gary R. Berger
and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago.
APPROVE MINUTES Probst moved, seconded by McGraw, that the Minutes of the
July 6, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting be approved as
submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0)
CASE #88-25; SUP Chairman Curtis opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m.
SATELLITE DISH and Deputy Clerk Iago verified that the Notice of Hearing
ANTENNA, 4201 NO. was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on July 20,
LEXINGTON, CONTROL 1988, and mailed to affected property owners the same
DATA CORPORATION date.
Planner Bergly advised the applicant is requesting a SUP to allow installation of
a satellite transmitting and receiving antenna on the roof of Building #2 in the
Control Data Complex located west of Lexington Avenue. The "dish" is 1.8 meters
(5.9 feet) in diameter and will be installed so the maximum height will be 7-1/2
feet above the roof.
• Bergly explained that both Zoning Ordinance definitions of "Miscellaneous Tower"
and "Electronic Tower" require a Special Use Permit in all zoning districts. He
noted the staff had determined the more restrictive "Miscellaneous Towers"
definition would apply to this case.
The Planner stated the satellite antenna would be located near the center of the
roof on Building #2; the building is approximately 280 feet square and the roof
is at an elevation of 1,032 feet. The antenna will be fixed in one position with
the capability of manually rotating the "dish" and re-fixing it at a more
advantageous angle if future reception conditions warrant.
Bergly noted the nearest homes to the west and northwest are over 1,400 feet from
the proposed antenna and they would have limited exposure to the "dish". He also
noted the proximity to water towers, broadcasting towers and mechanical
equipment of the roofs of adjoining industrial buildings are unique conditions
which justify the SUP.
Member Probst questioned the Planner's recommendation to restrict to the height
of the antenna to 8 ft. , rather than 7-1/2 ft. as stated previously in the report
of 8-3-88.
Bergly advised there may be a slight variation in the placement of the antenna on
the roof of the building; restricting the height to 8 ft. would allow the
applicant some flexibility when determining the most central location on the
• roof.
There was discussion relative to the possibility of radio or television
interference in the area due to the antenna.
William Schaefer, representing Contel, explained the frequencies utilized and
advised it would be highly unlikely the antenna would cause any interference in
the area.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, August 3, 1988
Page 2
CASE #88-25 (Cont'd) Chairman Curtis asked if there was anyone present who
wished to be heard either in favor of or opposed to
this matter.
• There was no response. Chairman Curtis closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Petersen moved, seconded by Probst, that Commission
recommend to Council approval of Case #88-25, Special Use Permit to install a
VSAT "dish" antenna on Building #2, Control Data Corporation, 4201 North
Lexington Avenue, based on the limited exposure to nearby homes and the proximity
to water towers, broadcasting towers and mechanical equipment on the roofs of
adjoining industrial buildings being unique conditions which justify approval,
and, contingent upon the following:
1. The antenna be located on the roof as near the center of the building
as possible.
2. The antenna is to be 1.8 meters in diameter.
3. The antenna shall be no higher than 8 feet above the roof.
Motion carried unanimously. (6-0)
CASE #88-22; SITE Planner Bergly explained this matter was continued from
PLAN REVIEW & VAR. the July 6 Planning meeting to allow the Board of Review
FOR PARKING LOT, the opportunity to review the requested variance for
BETHEL COLLEGE surfacing material.
Bergly referred Commission to the Board of Appeals minutes of 7-21-88
recommending approval of the variance conditioned upon the aggregate surface
• being replaced with bituminous surface within one year.
The Planner advised Bethel proposes to construct a 76 space, Class I aggregate
surface, parking lot in the east-central area of the campus adjacent to other
parking lots. He stated the Campus Master Plan had shown two parking lots in the
southeast area which will very likely not be built; the current proposal will
essentially replace one of those lots.
Bergly stated the drainage swale between the existing parking lot and the
proposed lots was inspected by RCWD with the conclusion it has suffered from
erosion damage. Commission was referred to a letter dated 7-14-88 from RCWD
clarifying the Watershed District's position regarding the proposed overflow
parking lot and the existing gully. Bergly suggested a recommendation for
approval be continent upon applicant receipt of a permit from RCWD for the
proposed stormwater drainage plan including repair of the eroded ditch adjacent
to the parking lot.
Planner Bergly also advised that the parking lot material must be approved by the
Village Engineer.
Bergly referred Commission to Page 2 of his report which outlines the conditions
he suggests be attached to a recommendation for approval.
Commission questioned the Planner's recommendation to delete one of the parking
lots shown in the southeast area of the Campus Master Plan.
• Bergly stated the Master Plan was approved by Special Use Permit; an amendment to
the SUP would be required to add an additional parking lot. The applicant has
chosen instead to delete one of the lots shown on the Master Plan.
There was discussion relative to which parking lot would be deleted from the
Master Plan.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, August 3, 1988
Page 3
CASE #88-22 (Cont'd) Craig Hjelle, representing Bethel College, advised the
parking lot adjacent to the new maintenance storage
building would be deleted and left as open space.
•
Probst questioned if the one year time-frame for installation of bituminous
surface was acceptable to the applicant.
Hjelle advised that period of time would be workable for staging and budgeting
for the parking lot improvement.
Piotrowski moved, seconded by Meury, that Commission
recommend to Council approval of Case #88-22, Site Plan Review for Parking Lot
Expansion and Variance for Surfacing Material, Bethel College, contingent upon
the following:
1. The Watershed District issue a permit for the proposed stormwater drainage
plan, including repair of the eroded ditch adjacent to the parking lot.
2. The Village Engineer approve the surfacing material as required by the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. The College provide a bituminous surface on this lot within one year from
the date of Council approval.
4. That one of the parking lots shown in the southeast area of the Campus
Master Plan be deleted.
Motion carried unanimously. (6-0)
CASE #88-23; REAR Planner Bergly referred Commission to his report dated
YARD SETBACK VAR. , 8-3-88, outlining the request for a 12 ft. rear yard
• 1377 EIDE CIRCLE, variance for construction of a three-season porch at
GERALD DREYLING 1377 Eide Circle.
Bergly stated the applicant currently has an open deck and proposes to enclose
the deck area. He advised the property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac
backing onto a natural area in Floral Park. The applicant had planted a row of
Columnar Poplars on City park property (with City permission) adjacent to his
property; the trees are now mature and provide adequate separation between the
residence and the park.
The Planner advised the adjacent homeowners had been contacted and have no
objections to the proposal; the porch will not be visible from neighboring homes.
Bergly explained the lot depth of 100 feet is less than required by ordinance and
the house is placed approximately 9 ft. further to the rear than the required
40-ft. front yard setback. He stated he had reviewed old topography maps and it
would appear there was a drainageway between two wetlands that crossed the lot at
about the normal front setback line; he noted the possibility the house was
located to avoid unnecessary excavation and filling.
Planner Bergly advised the Zoning Ordinance provides for variances to be granted
based on the shape of the lot or unusual terrain that would prohibit reasonable
development equivalent to that which would be permitted without variance on a
similar size lot in the same district. He also noted that the variance would have
no negative visual impact on the adjacent property owners.
• Commission was referred to the Board of Appeals minutes of 7-21-88 recommending
approval of the variance based on the hardship due to lot configuration and that
due to sufficient foliage and natural buffers the adjacent properties would not
be negatively impacted.
Gerald Dreyling, applicant, was present.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, August 3, 1988
Page 4
- Commission
CASE ��88 23 (Cont d) Moved b Meur seconded b Piotrowski, that Commiss o
Y Y Y
recommend to Council approval of Case #88-23, a 12 ft.
• Rear Yard Setback Variance to construct a three-season porch at 1377 Eide Circle,
Gerald Dreyling, based on the hardship identified as the unusual lot depth and
configuration and the fact the requested variance does not negatively impact the
adjacent properties. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0)
CASE #88-24; VAR. Planner Bergly reviewed the request for variances for
SIGN HGT. & SETBACK height and front yard setback for a free-standing
4797 HWY 10, SCHERER business sign from Scherer Brothers Lumber Company.
Bergly advised the plan for redeveloping the lumberyard site was approved by the
City in April 1987. Setback variances from the Hwy. 10 right-of-way were allowed
that directly impact the current request; parking and the storage building were
permitted with no setback (20 ft. parking and 50 ft. building setbacks are
required) . He advised that the site plan was approved with literally no
reasonable front yard area to locate the sign except where proposed; the
applicant cited the right-of-way width, the distance to the travel lanes on
Highway 10, and the extensive visual and physical improvement of the site
conditions are principal reasons for the variances.
Bergly referred Commission to the Board of Appeals minutes of 7-21-88
recommending approval of the 20 ft. front yard setback variances, due to the
shortage of open space for signage on the parcel in the front yard and the fact
the previously granted setback variances appear to set a precedent for
recommending approval of this request.
The Planner explained the Board of Appeals had voted unanimously to recommend
denial of the 9 ft. sign height variance and had suggested the applicant move the
sign further south on the site to provide more visibility. Bergly noted in the
Board of Appeals minutes the applicant had subsequent discussions with the Board
Chair and suggested a compromise solution involving a 4 ft. sign height variance
rather than a 9 ft. variance. The applicant had stated the sign at the 20 ft.
height would be comparable to the Big Ten Supper Club signage and would still
provide sufficient visibility for motorists traveling along Hwy 10.
Commission questioned if the sign would be internally or externally lighted; the
applicant advised it would be an internally lighted sign.
Larry Leitschuh, representing Scherer Brothers Lumber, stated he agreed with the
Board of Appeals recommendation to relocate the sign to the more southerly area
of the site near the driveway.
There was discussion relative to how the sign height measurement is determined;
Planner Bergly reviewed the Sign Ordinance and explained the 16 ft. height
measurement includes the top of the sign pylon.
Leitschuh explained another tenant would be occupying space on site and signage
for the tenant would be placed on the same sign pylon, below the Scherer sign.
Commission members generally favored the sign setback variance. Member Probst
expressed concern relative to the sign height variance and Member Piotrowski was
of the opinion the sign height variance was unnecessary. Member McGraw commended
Scherer for the renovation of the site; he favored the sign height variance.
Member Meury stated the 20 ft. height variance should be sufficient and the sign
would be screened from the Arden Manor residential site by buildings on site.
Probst moved, seconded by Piotrowski, that Commission
recommend to Council approval of the 20 foot Sign Setback Variance as requested,
Case #88-24, 4797 Highway 10, Scherer Brothers Lumber Company, based on the fact
the previous site plan approval set precedent for sign placement. Motion carried
unanimously. (6-0
Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, August 3 , 1988
Page 5
CASE #88-24 (Cont'd) Probst moved, seconded by Piotrowski, that Commission
recommend to Council denial of the requested 9 foot Sign
• Height Variance, Case #88-24, 4797 Highway 10, Scherer Brothers Lumber Company.
Member Petersen stated it is the intent of the Sign Ordinance to keep all signs
in proportion with adjacent properties; he was not opposed to the requested sign
height variance. He also noted the variance would not impact the only residential
neighbor to the south of the site.
Member Probst stated there does not appear to be a need for the variance; he
expressed concern that approval would set a precedent for sign height in this
area.
Motion failed. (Probst, Piotrowski voting in favor; Curtis, McGraw, Meury and
Petersen opposed) (2-4)
McGraw moved, seconded by Meury, that Commission
recommend to Council approval of a 4 foot Sign Height Variance, as measured from
the ground to the top of the sign pylon, 4797 Highway 10, Scherer Brothers Lumber
Company, based on the the fact the travelled lanes of Highway 10 are considerably
father from the sign placement than in other similarly zoned situations in the
Village and contingent upon the applicant removal of the roof sign at this
location within a period of 25 days from the date of formal approval. Motion
carried. (McGraw, Meury, Curtis, Petersen voting in favor; Probst and Piotrowski
opposed) (4-2)
CASE #88-28; SITE Planner Bergly explained the proposal to construct a
PLAN REVIEW, LAB 3,000 sq. ft. addition to the lab at Land O'Lakes, 4001
ADDN, 4001 LEXINGTON, North Lexington Avenue, as per his report of 8-3-88.
. LAND O'LAKES
Bergly noted the addition will be used for warehouse storage for equipment, no
storage of hazardous chemicals and no additional office space will be provided.
He stated there would be additional employees, so parking would not be affected.
The Planner advised a drainage plan has been submitted to and approved by the
RCWD (7-27-88) ; a permit will be issued upon receipt of charges due from the
applicant.
Bergly stated a few small Amur Maples would be replaced in the landscaped area
surrounding the proposed addition.
James Strecker, representing Land O'Lakes, advised the shrubs would have to be
replaced due to drought conditions and the sprinkling ban. He stated the building
materials would match the existing building.
Moved by Petersen, seconded by Probst, that Commission
recommend to Council approval of Case #88-28, Site Plan Review for Lab Addition,
4001 North Lexington, subject to applicant receipt of the Rice Creek Watershed
District Permit. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0)
CASE #88-27; TEMP. Planner Bergly explained the applicant had requested a
SUP, SATELLITE temporary SUP for a satellite "dish" antenna, due to the
ANTENNA, 4105 fact the application was submitted after the deadline for
NO. LEXINGTON, publication of Notice of Public Hearing.
A representative of Contel was present to explain the antenna was essential to
the operation of the insurance business. He advised the antenna not a permanent
structure and could be removed within one day in the event the SUP was denied.
Chairman Curtis explained the proper procedure would be to request the temporary
Special Use Permit directly from the Council; he advised the Commission is only a
recommending body.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, August 3, 1988
Page 6
CASE #88-27 (Cont'd) Moved by Meury, seconded by Petersen, that Planning
Commission defer any action on the request for a
Temporary-Special Use Permit as outlined in Case #88-27. Motion carried
• unanimously. (6-0)
CASE #88-04; LOT Planner Bergly advised this matter was tabled at the
SPLIT, 1960 W. CO. 3-2-88 Commission meeting, pending potential State
RD. E-2, ROBINSON legislation that would allow the County to sell a portion
of the property in the highway right-of-way back to the
adjacent land owner. The proposed legislation was not approved, but will be
presented to the legislature again in the next session.
Bergly advised Paul Kirkwold, Deputy Director and Assistant County Engineer for
Ramsey County, indicated to him that the County has no intention of ever using
the right-of-way and that they will continue their attempts to dispose of the
excess right-of-way; the County would attempt to maintain 43 feet, as shown on
the Elseth survey.
Bergly stated the Commission would be considering granting a variance in a
location where the house would ordinarily be located if the lot were squared off
by the purchase of the right-of-way. It would require a setback variance of 14
ft. as well as a 900 sq. ft. lot area variance.
The Planner has discussed this matter with Attorney Lynden relative to the
proposed lot split; it was Lynden's opinion the hardship would be the legal
technicality which prevents the legal exchange of property and he expressed no
concerns relative to the application.
There was discussion regarding the actual ownership of the property; Robinson
stated his attorney had researched the title and provide a written statement
which indicates the right-of-way property was under the fee ownership of the
applicant and that the County retains an easement over the property.
Commission also discussed the building envelope on the property and the
possibility of modification of the land by filling to accommodate the home
construction.
Member Piotrowski pointed out that if variances were required the Board of
Appeals should review the application and make recommendation to Council for
approval or denial.
After further discussion it was the general consensus of the Commission members
to request the Village Attorney and Robinson's Attorney review and reach an
agreement as to the legal boundaries of the property.
Commission recommended the applicant submit a sketch of the building location, a
topographical map which outlines the drainage pattern of the land, any proposal
for fill in conjunction with building and a legal description of the property.
Moved by Meury, seconded by McGraw, that Case #88-04, Lot
Split at 1960 West County Road E2, be tabled until such time as the following
information is received and compiled for submission by the applicant:
1. Written opinion of the Village Attorney and Mr. Robinson Attorney which
advises they are in agreement as to the ownership and legal boundaries of
the above mentioned property.
2. A diagram outlining the building location for construction of a home on
the property.
3. A request for any variances which would be required for submission to the
Board of Appeals for their review and recommendation.
4. A topographical map which outlines the drainage pattern on the land and
any proposed modification of the land by fill.
5. A legal description of the property
Motion carried unanimously. (6-0
Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, August 3 , 1988
Page 7
COUNCIL REPORT Zoning Administrator Iago reported on status of the
July Planning Commission Cases heard by Council. Member
• Probst reported on the status of the Task Force Report for Land Use Study
submitted to Council at their regular meeting held July 11, 1988.
MISC. DISCUSSION Commission members discussed the following items:
-Establishment of a policy for development of wetlands in Arden Hills.
-Improving water quality in lakes in the Village; mentioned increasing
number of times streets are swept and storm sewers cleaned.
ADJOURNMENT Meury moved, seconded by Probst, that the meeting be
adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Robert Curtis, Chairman