Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-04-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. VILLAGE HALL 1. Call to Order and Roll Call . 2. Approval of Minutes of April 16, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting 3. Case #88-09, Valentine Hills No. 2 Preliminary Plat at County Road F and Valentine Avenue, David Dnistran. Public hearing held on April 6, 1988. 4. Case #88-10, Front yard setback variance for a Residence at 1611 Lake Johanna Boulevard, Dave and Tami Moberg. 5. Case #88-11 , Front yard setback variance for Norwest Bank of Minnesota located at County Road E and Pine Tree Drive. 6. Case #88-12, Site plan review for maintenance building on the Bethel College campus. 7. Status report on Northeast 35W and 694 Study, Dennis Probst. 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, May 4, 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, Ray McGraw, Calvin Meury, Scott Petersen, Dennis Probst, Barbara Piotrowski, Dorothy Zehm, and Dave Carlson. Also Present: Planner John Bergly, Councilmember Jeanne Winiecki and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. OATH OF OFFICE Councilmember Jeanne Winiecki administered the Oath of Office to Member Piotrowski. APPROVE MINUTES Members Carlson and Petersen advised they had voted in favor of the motion to table Case #88-09, Preliminary Plat, Valentine Hills No. 2, and requested the Commission minutes of the April 6, 1988 meeting be amended. The minutes should reflect a unanimous vote by Commission, (8-0) . Moved by Malone, seconded by Petersen, that the Minutes of the April 6, 1988, Planning Commission meeting be approved as amended. Motion carried unanimously. (9-0) CASE #88-09; PRELIM. Chairman Curtis advised this matter had been tabled at PLAT, VALENTINE HILLS the April meeting, to allow the Planner to evaluate a NO. 2, CO. RD. F AND and set forth a quantifiable means of analyzing filling VALENTINE AVE, D. of wetlands. • DNISTRAN The Planner reviewed the background of the proposed plat and referred Commission to his report of 5-4-88, explaining the additional information he was submitting for review. He noted the attachments include a review of undesignated wetlands in the City that have potential for development in the manner of the subject site; a summary by the developer showing the amount of land above and below the 100-year flood elevation; and the action by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Bergly explained that concern has been expressed that buyers of the lots should be made aware of the potential water levels on the lots in the event of significant storm runoff; the easement will be shown on the plat, providing minimal consumer protection. He suggested if the proposed plat were approved, there be a condition attached which would require the transfer of title to indicate how high the water would be on each of the lots. Bergly recommended the matter be referred to the Village attorney for review and recommendation on a method of including specific flood information in the title. The Planner identified the six lots proposed, and the building sites which are located in pairs around the perimeter of the plat. He stated there would be filling around the building pads, and they would be dredging the pond area located in the center of the plat, would allow for retention of storm water. Bergly advised there would be standing water in the dredged area throughout the year. He stated the pads are proposed to be developed so that the 100-year flood plain would approach the building pad, but not run onto the building pad itself and would not enter the houses or basements constructed on the pads. • Bergly displayed a map, which identified the wetland in this area. He noted the City park in the center of the wetland area is not filled; it is intended as an open space area and is supposedly used as a water storage area. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, May 4, 1988 Page 2 CASE #88-09 (Cont'd) The Planner referred Commission to the survey conducted, relative to development of wetlands, dated 4-29-88. He advised several government agencies and 14 suburban communities were contacted to • determine what type of regulations were in effect throughout the metropolitan area. Bergly noted there are few communities which have special wetland or conservancy districts to protect these types of wetlands, and there are no substantive guidelines regarding the minimum size of a building site or the amount of usable land in relation to its zoning district and overall lot size. Chairman Curtis referred Commission to the letter from Ramsey County Department of Public Works, dated 4-28-88, requesting the applicant dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way to the County. The letter indicates the applicant has the option of requesting a variance from the County Board or a setback variance from the City to comply with this request. David Dnistran advised he had spoken to Ramsey County and they will be forwarding an amended letter to the City, stating the 10 ft. right-of-way is not a mandatory requirement, only a request. David Dnistran, applicant, stated he would assure the future buyers of the lots that he would place restrictive covenants on the deeds which state the basements of the homes constructed on these lots could not be placed below a certain level, to insure the water problems would not be increased. Dnistran also assured the Commission he would grant the City an easement for the lowland area, which would insure no further fill being placed on the rear portion of these proposed lots, and provide protection for the City, as well as the future buyers. • Dnistran's engineer displayed a drawing which identified the proposed amount of fill to be placed in the area, and compensating storage excavation. He stated the fill would consist of 105,000 cu. ft. of sand, 63,800 cu. ft. of compensating excavation and 21,000 cu. ft. of excavation below the permanent water level elevation; total amount of fill would be 190,000 cu. ft. Jim Smith, 4109 Valentine Crest, expressed concern that water would remain standing in the ponding area and become stagnant. Dnistran's engineer advised there would be water moving through the pond as it comes from the two culverts in the area. Dan Blackey, 4050 Fairview, showed slides of the water problems that currently exist in this area; expressed concern that the drainage problem could become worse with the proposed development. Dnistran's engineer advised the intent is not to worsen the problem by dredging the pond deeper to compensate for the fill. Other concerns expressed by residents in the area: -Aesthetics of the area being destroyed. -Additional drainage problems occurring. -Maintaining quality development on the proposed lots, in order to insure . the value of their homes would not be depreciated. -Development in the area is not consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. -Questioned the soil boring tests. Chairman Curtis questioned if the City Engineer had reviewed the soil boring tests and the drainage plan. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, May 4, 1988 Page 3 CASE #88-09 (Cont'd) Bergly advised the City Engineer had reviewed both the tests and the drainage plan, and found them acceptable. • Member Probst questioned if other communities have standards on fill and if Mounds View High School has any water retention facilities. Bergly advised that one suburban communities requires 75% of the minimum lot area be dry for most of the year; he noted the proposed plat has 45 to 65% of the lot areas dry. Member Meury questioned what percentage of area would be filled in this development. The Planner stated 25% of the 4. 1 acres is proposed to be filled. Meury questioned if the applicant would determine the proposed plat economically feasible if the Commission recommended only 10% of the area to be filled. Dnistran's engineer advised only two lots would be developable, and that would not be economically feasible. Meury expressed concern that a precedent would be set with the development of this wetland area, and the Planner has identified six other areas of this nature. He also expressed concern that recommending approval of the proposal would not be consistent with Arden Hills policy to preserve wetlands. Member Zehm questioned if the sand fill would support the proposed home • construction. Dnistran's engineer advised it is a common practise to use sand fill for home construction. Member Probst stated it is the assignment of the Commission to review the proposed application as it relates to City Codes and Ordinances; it was his opinion that the application has met all criteria and the Commission has no basis to recommend denial. Member Malone agreed with the concerns expressed by Meury, however, he also agreed with Probst that there is no basis for denial. He commented that assurances should be provided to potential buyers that 50% of their property would be restricted by covenant or easements. Malone suggested that a policy for the development of wetlands of this nature be determined and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Probst moved, seconded by Petersen, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #88-09, Preliminary Plat, Valentine Hills No. 2, County Road E and Valentine Avenue, David Dnistran, contingent upon the following: 1. The applicant provide restrictive convenants to insure the home construction on the lots platted not exceed a certain basement level and this information be incorporated on the title to the land. 2. The applicant convey the necessary easement to the City of Arden Hills, to • insure no further filling on the rear portion of these lots, and that this information be identified on the title to the land. 3. The above-mentioned documents be reviewed and approved by the Village Attorney and Engineer. 4. The applicant be required to meet all criteria set forth in the Rice Creek Watershed District Permit No. 88-24, approved 4/4/88. Motion carried. (.Probst, Petersen, Curtis, Malone, Martin, McGraw, Piotrowski and Zt:hm voting in favor; Meury opposed (8-1) Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, May 4, 1988 Page 4 CASE #88-10; FRONT Planner Bergly reviewed to his report of May 4, 1988, YARD SETBACK VAR. relative to the requested front yard setback variance. . 1611 LK. JOHANNA at 1611 Lake Johanna Boulevard, David Moberg. BLVD. , D. MOBERG Bergly stated the applicant requests a 15 ft. front yard setback variance due to the steep slope at the rear of the lot. He stated the home directly north of the subject lot was granted a front yard variance in 1987; conditions on the two lots are identical. The Planner referred Commission members to the Board of Appeals minutes, 4-28-88, unanimously recommending approval of the requested variance, due to the steep slope at the rear of the lot and the fact that the variance would not negative impact the neighborhood. Bergly stated he had discussed with the applicant the possibility of rotating the house slightly on the lot, which may reduce the setback variance, as well as more aesthetically blend with the adjacent home. He advised the applicant was agreeable to the suggested home rotation. David Moberg, applicant, advised he would discuss the home placement recommendation with his architect and he would be sensitive to the needs of the adjacent neighbor. He questioned if the variance request would have to be re-submitted; Moberg did not favor delaying the request, as he is working under time constraints. Member Probst questioned when the roadway would be paved, as it appears to be . eroding. Moberg advised no definite plans for paving have been set; he and Mr. Anderson, 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd. , are intending to pave the roadway. Member Malone questioned if the applicant could delay the matter for one month; it was his opinion that the Commission should consider a lessor variance if possible. Moberg stated he would work with the architect and utilize a lessor setback if the house plan is workable at the lessor setback; he stated he is working under time constraints and would prefer not to delay the matter. Probst pointed out that the adjacent properties are at a lessor front setback than required by Code; he was not opposed to the variance as requested. Moved by Petersen, seconded by Zehm, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #88-10, Front Yard Setback Variance, 1611 Lake Johanna Boulevard, David Moberg, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (9-0) CASE #88-11; SITE Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 5-4-88, relative to PLAN REVISION AND the proposed site plan revision and front yard setback FRONT YARD SETBACK variance, Norwest Bank, County Road E and Pine Tree VARIANCE, NORWEST Drive. BANK, CO. RD. E & • PINETREE DRIVE Bergly noted the proposed expansion would result in a 38-ft. setback from Pine Tree Drive, therefore, a 12 ft. setback variance would be required. He explained that various alternatives have been investigated to allow the expansion without variances, however, the parcel is narrow. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, May 4, 1988 Page 5 CASE #88-11 (Cont'd) The Planner explained the plan meets all other ordinance requirements, proposed additional landscaping will soften the visual impact of the building on Pine Tree Drive, the parking spaces initially proposed between the addition and County Road E have been removed, therefore, the front yard will be retained as a landscaped area. Bergly referred Commission to the Board of Appeals minutes, 4-28-88, unanimously recommending approval. The Planner advised the only physical hardship that exists is the width of the parcel, however, he noted mitigating circumstances would be a considerably less severe setback variance is requested now than was allowed in first stage construction, and, landscaping is proposed to soften the impact of a reduced setback. Member Probst questioned if the proposed landscaping materials would be the same sizes as the existing materials shown on the plan. Architect Wally Daniels advised the applicant would try to match existing materials as closely as possible. Daniels reviewed the exterior and interior plan of the proposed addition; he noted the building materials would be the same and the existing exterior design format would be followed. He advised that with the proposed addition the bank building would be in alignment with the other businesses along County Road E. Moved by Malone, seconded by Carlson, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #88-11, Site Plan Revision and Front Yard • Setback Variance, Norwest Bank, County Road E and Pine Tree Drive, based on the following: 1. The applicant has no alternatives for expansion, due to the narrow parcel; 2. The applicant has shown sensitivity to soften the impact of a reduced setback by intensive landscaping and maintaining the exterior design and materials, and, 3. The applicant has assured they would endeavor to match the proposed landscaping materials as closely as possible with those currently on site. Motion carried unanimously. (9-0) CASE #88-12; SITE Planner Bergly referred Commission to his report, dated PLAN REVIEW, MAINT. 5-4-88, relative to the proposed site plan review for a BLDG. , BETHEL COLLEGE maintenance building at Bethel College. Bergly advised the proposed building location conforms to the campus Master Plan; it would be located in the extreme southeast corner of the campus. He noted the building will be effectively screened from Hamline Avenue by dense trees along the right-of-way and by 15 to 18 feet of elevation change, with the street being depressed adjacent to the site. The Planner advised a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees are proposed along the west and south elevations of the proposed building, to screen and soften the impact of the structure from adjacent homes located 400 feet to the southwest of the site. Bergly stated the existing metal storage building, located northwest of the proposed building, would be removed in the near future. He also noted the proposed building would be setback from Hamline Avenue approximately 80 ft. , which exceeds the required setback. The Planner recommended approval based on the fact the proposed building and level of site improvements seem appropriate for the use and remote character of the site, the building will consolidate and put under cover much of the equipment and supplies used by the college, and the proposed improvements are consistent with the approved campus Master Plan. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, May 4, 1988 Page 6 CASE #88-12 (Cont'd) Commission comments: . -Landscaping would not afford much screening to the residential area located to the southwest of the site; size of plant materials, and number could be increased. -Preferred building material other than metal; suggested the existing wood storage building be painted the same color as the proposed metal storage building. -Suggested the area undergo a general clean-up; junk vehicles and other construction materials be removed. Craig Hjelle, Maintenance Supervisor for Bethel, noted the construction materials on the premises were due to the recent demolition of a building; he advised they would be removed and the junk vehicle would be removed. Hjelle stated it would not be economically feasible to construct the storage building from materials such as brick or wood. It was his opinion the metal building would not be visible outside the campus property and would clean-up the area by eliminating outside storage of the equipment. Commission suggested the applicant intensify the landscaping plan, prior to Council review; they advised the applicant should work with the Planner to determine sufficient sizes and utilize faster growing plant materials. Meury moved, seconded by Zehm, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case No. 88-12, Site Plan Review for Maintenance Building on the Bethel College Campus, contingent upon the applicant working with the City Planner to develop an enhanced landscape plan, utilizing larger and faster growing plant materials and minimizing visibility from adjacent residential • property, prior to Council review at their Regular Meeting held May 9, 1988, and, the existing wood storage building being painted the same color as the proposed metal storage building. Motion carried. (Meury, Zehm, Curtis, Malone, Martin, McGraw, Petersen and Probst voting in favor; Carlson opposed) (8-1) CASE #88-01; MINOR Planner Bergly referred Commission to his report of SITE PLAN REVISION, 5-4-88, relative to a minor revision in the MnDOT site MNDOT, CO. RD. I plan. Bergly advised MnDot has requested Commission review a reduction in the length of the metal cold storage building, from 184 feet to 120 feet, and relocation of the new driveway entrance 40 feet to the east of its approved location. He noted the landscaping would be adjusted accordingly. Member Probst questioned if the reduction in the building size would result in outside storage of equipment formally proposed for indoor storage. Bergly stated he was not sure; it was his assumption the building was planned for future needs. He stated he would contact MnDot representatives and determine if materials would be stored outdoors. Probst moved, seconded by martin, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case No. 88-01 Site Plan Revision, MnDot Truck Station Site, County Road I, subject to MnDot defining there would be sufficient space in the metal cold storage building for indoor storage of equipment. Motion carried unanimously. (9-0) STATUS RPT; LAND Member Probst, Chair of the subcommittee, reported on STUDY I-35W & 694 the I-35W/I-694 Task Force meetings. He advised future agendas will include a full analysis of Tax Increment Financing, discussion with realtors, and development of an early draft of the committee's report to Council. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, May 4, 1988 Page 7 COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Winiecki reported on items of interest to the Commission. • ADJOURNMENT McGraw moved, seconded by Petersen, that the meeting be adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (9-0) Robert Curtis, Chairman •