HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes AGENDA
• REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1 , 1988 - 7:30 P.M.
VILLAGE HALL
1. Call to Order and Roll Call .
2. Approval of Minutes of May 4, 1988, Planning Commission meeting.
3. Case #88-13, Lot Division and Lot Width Variance located at
3279 North Snelling Avenue; Herbert and Joanne Kulman.
4. Case #88-14, Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a service
station Goodyear Service Center) in a B-2 district located at
3751 North Lexington Avenue; C. G. Rein Company.
5. Case #88-15, Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a fast
food restaurant (Burger King) in a B-2 district located at
3751 North Lexington Avenue; C. G. Rein Company.
6. Case #88-16, Special Use Permit for a home occupation (beauty shop)
in a single-family residence at 4519 Lakeshore Place; Glenn and
Nancy Beggin.
7. Case #88-17, Minor Subdivision and Lot Consolidation at
3340 Dellwood; Paul and Jean Arend and Dwight and Karon Jessup.
8. Case #88-18, Site Plan Review for the replacement of temporary
wood bleachers with permanent bleachers at Mounds View High School
located south of County Road "F" and east of 35W.
9. Status report on Northeast 35W and 694 Study, Dennis Probst.
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, June 1, 1988, 7:30 p.m. - Village Hall
CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof Acting Chairman
Calvin Meury called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
• ROLL CALL
Present: Acting Chair Calvin Meury, Paul Malone, Peter Martin,
Ray McGraw, Scott Petersen, Dennis Probst, Barbara
Piotrowski, Dorothy Zehm and Dave Carlson.
Absent: Robert Curtis.
Also Present: Planner John Bergly, Councilmember Jeanne Winiecki and
Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago.
APPROVE MINUTES Zehm moved, seconded by Petersen, that the Minutes of
the May 4, 1988, Planning Commission meeting be
approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (9-0)
CASE #88-13; LOT Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 6-1-88 relative
DIVISION & LOT to the proposed lot division and lot width variance for
WIDTH VAR. , 3279 Herbert and Joanne Kulman, 3279 Snelling Avenue.
SNELLING AVENUE
Bergly explained the request is to divide an 85 x 820 ft. lot into two lots
each of which have legal access to public streets. The lot containing the
residence of the applicant is 85 x 650 ft. ; the other would be 85 x 165 ft.
He advised that the lot widths are 85 ft. rather than the required 95 ft. and a
10 ft. lot width variance is required.
The Planner referred Commission to the minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting,
5-26-88, recommending approval of the lot width variance based on the fact it
• is a lot of record.
Bergly reported the engineer had verbally advised the sewer access to Lot C
would have to be gained by an easement that would run along the south line of
Lot A down to the sewer line which runs along the lake, at the lowest point in
this area. The engineer recommended if the lot split were approved a provision
be included which required a 20 ft. easement for sanitary sewer.
Joanne Kulman stated she was advised today of the necessity of the sewer
easement; she requested Commission grant a continuance.
Herbert Kulman requested Commission consider the application at this time and
questioned how long the approval would remain in effect if granted.
Acting Chair Meury advised the applicant he would have six months to record the
lot split should the approval be granted.
Member Martin questioned if the applicant had contacted the adjacent property
owner to the south to obtain the land necessary to make the parcel proposed to
be split wide enough to comply with current lot width requirements.
Herbert and Joanne Kulman advised they had not contacted the property owners to
the south. Herbert explained he had not done so due to the fact it may hamper
future plans for development of that southerly adjacent parcel of land.
Member Malone asked the Kulman to explain the rented building on the property.
• Herbert Kulman advised it was a guest house on the property when purchased in
1966 and was rented occasionally; Kulman continued to rent the building.
Member Zehm questioned if it was the intent of the Kulman to further divide the
parcel of land on which the home is located.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, June 1, 1988
Page 2
CASE #88-13 (Cont'd) Kulman advised it would be left as is due to the fact
it is landlocked.
• Member Probst expressed concern that a precedent would be set for random
development if approval were granted; he encouraged Kulman to explore
alternatives for development of the property.
Member McGraw asked the applicant to provide records of the rental of the
building and advised he would prefer the applicant attempt to purchase the
additional land necessary to have the lot conform to the 95 ft. front width
requirement prior to consideration of the lot split by Commission. McGraw also
requested the applicant advise Commission of plans for further development of
the lot on which the residence is located.
Herbert Kulman advised he would prefer to withdraw the application at this
time.
Acting Chair Meury recognized the applicant's request to withdraw at this time.
A resident in the area questioned if the Planning Commission would be studying
this parcel of land for future development.
Acting Chair Meury and Planner Bergly advised the residents that was not the
responsibility of the Planning Commission or the City until such time as a
development application is received.
Residents asked the procedure for registering concerns relative to activities
on the premises.
• Acting Chair Meury advised concerns should be directed to the Clerk
Administrator at the Village Hall.
CASE #88-14 & #88-15; Acting Chair Meury advised that the two Special Use
SUP & SITE PLAN REV. , Permits would be considered jointly, since they are
SERVICE STATION AND part of the same development.
FAST FOOD RESTAURANT,
LEXINGTON AVE, C.G. REIN
Acting Chair Meury opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. and Deputy Clerk Iago
verified that the Notice of Hearing was published in the New Brighton Bulletin
on May 18, 1988, and mailed to affected property owners the same date.
Planner Bergly review his report of 6-1-88 relative to the two-building
business complex on the 2.5-acre site in a B-2 district. He advised one
building will be a Burger King Restaurant (3,000 sq. ft.) ; the other will house
a Goodyear Service Center (6,208 sq. ft. ) and a small retail store (3,000 sq.
ft.)
Bergly noted there would be one access to all three uses and parking is
arranged to be generally oriented to the uses, with some parking in the front
of the site adjacent to the Goodyear store.
The Planner advised the engineer has reviewed the application and reported
• there would be no problem with access onto Lexington nor with stacking space or
delay of traffic from the site, and no delays in entering the site from
Lexington Avenue. Bergly advised the engineer suggested a "bypass" be provided
along the drive-thru lane to allow patrons with large orders to pull off to
wait for orders or for other patrons may drive around them.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, June 1, 1988
Page 3
CASE #88-14 & 15 Bergly recommended a slight enhancement of the
(Continued) landscaping in lieu of fencing as required around fast
food restaurants; the applicant preferred the
landscaping rather than the fence. The Planner noted there should be no problem
with the use of landscaping for screening provided the plantings are dense. He
explained the screening was required to provide a buffer for residential
neighbors; the area is abutted primarily by industrial uses.
Commission questioned what type of tenant would be using the retail space;
Bergly advised the retail tenant has not been identified at this time.
Member McGraw questioned the front setback for the parking area; he preferred
the proposed parking be setback further so as to conform with other buildings
along Lexington Avenue.
Bergly advised the parking setback requirement is 20 ft. , however, some other
business establishments along Lexington have their buildings setback further
than 20 ft. He explained the applicant could provide berming or maybe some
additional separation for appearance of conformance with adjacent buildings.
William Sikora, C.G. Rein Company, and Mr. Riccard, Traffic Consultant, were
present to discuss the applications.
Sikora confirmed he had agreed to the enhanced landscaping for screening
purposes, rather than fencing, as explained by the Planner. He advised it was
the intent of the proposed site plan to create a pleasant atmosphere within
and to screen the area from the adjacent industrial buildings.
Sikora explained he would prefer to discuss the signage plan for the site at a
future meeting after consultation with the prospective tenants.
Member McGraw questioned if the proposed parking for the front of the building
could be setback further from Lexington Avenue; suggested the possibility of
eliminating the first row of parking spaces.
Sikora agreed to consider realignment of the buildings to gain 5 or 10 ft. ; he
noted there is approximately 60 ft. of green area from Lexington Avenue to the
line of this property and the building setback would be approximately 100 ft.
from Lexington Avenue.
Member Piotrowski questioned where the trash enclosures would be located.
Sikora advised Burger King trash enclosure would be toward the rear of the
building and would be the standard type utilized by the franchise. The retail
store would have a screened dumpster toward the north side of the building and
the Goodyear Service Center would have an interior storage area for the used
tires and interior storage for used oil which is later pumped out and recycled.
Member Probst expressed concern relative to the site organization; he stated
the entry sequence is similar to Shannon Square and seems to cause difficulty
for traffic. He anticipates high frequency of interior movement near the Burger
King site; he questioned if alternatives had been considered.
• Sikora advised the basic configuration was dictated by Ramsey County, as they
control the access along Lexington Avenue. He noted the interior site plan
slows traffic, eliminates the need for speed bumps and promotes safety.
Mr. Riccard, Traffic Consultant, reviewed the traffic study for the site. He
noted there would be no problem with traffic "stacking" and explained the
signing and markings can control interior movement on the site. Riccard stated
the parking provided is adequate.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, June 1, 1988
Page 4
CASE #88-14 & 15 Probst commented the site is "too busy" with three uses
(Continued) proposed for the site.
• Sikora pointed out the site is not overused; the green space area exceeds the
Code requirements. He explained the retail site would probably be utilized by
some type of automobile related use to compliment the Goodyear store.
Member Carlson questioned the storage area for tires and used oil.
Sikora explained the tire storage is located between the buildings and the oil
storage tank is above ground in a room lined with fiberglass for containment in
the event of a leak.
Member Petersen commented he would prefer to see a better separation between
the traffic areas and parking; concern was expressed for safety of pedestrians
walking between the two buildings.
Member Zehm expressed concern relative to the less than 400 ft. separation
between the Church, YMCA and this site as required by Code. She questioned if
the Church had been contacted and advised of the proposal.
Planner Bergly advised Commission that the City of Shoreview does not have such
a separation requirement and it may be presumed there would not be a concern
about the proximity to a church in Shoreview. He advised he had not contacted
the Church or the YMCA.
Sikora stated he would be willing to discuss the matter with the Church and
YMCA prior to Council consideration of this application. He noted the
• separation is only slightly less than 400 ft. on the property boundaries; the
building separation is greater.
Member McGraw left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Member Malone commented that if action were taken to recommend approval of the
application it would not be implied that Commission would consider requests for
signage in excess of the requirements.
Sikora advised he understood and he would advise the tenants they would have to
adhere to the current Code requirements for signs. He also agreed to the
placement of the bypass lane in the drive-thru area, as recommended by the
engineer and the enhanced landscaping, in lieu of fencing.
Member Martin expressed concern relative to the potential for pedestrian
crossings from the YMCA and pedestrian safety as Lexington is a high volume
traffic street. He suggested the applicant could discuss pedestrian safety with
the YMCA to work out a solution for eliminating members crossing Lexington.
Sikora stated he could not prevent pedestrian crossings on Lexington; he
commented that the separation requirement is due to the drive-thru window,
however, a restaurant without the drive-thru would not have to meet the
requirement and would also have the potential for pedestrian traffic crossing.
He commented that as the Shoreview side of Lexington develops the County may
address the safety problems of pedestrian crossings.
• Member Martin expressed concern relative to pedestrian safety on site; he
suggested safety precautions be included on the site plan for pedestrians
crossing from Burger King to the retail store.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, June 1, 1988
Page 5
CASE #88-14 & 15 Sikora agreed to place pedestrian lanes on site from
(Continued) the retail store area to the Burger King parking area
and identify them by striped crosswalks and stop signs
• for both directions.
Member Meury asked if approval of the SUP for "service station" would include
the dispensing of fuel at the site.
Planner Bergly advised that although the definition includes the dispensing of
fuel, the Commission action should stipulate a provision which does not allow
the dispensing of fuel at this site.
Acting Chair Meury questioned if there was anyone present who wished to be
heard either in favor of or opposed to this matter.
There was no response and the public hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m.
Member Martin recommended Commission include a provision which requests the
applicant discuss with Ramsey County and the YMCA methods of alleviating the
potential pedestrian crossing problems and that the crosswalks on site, as
discussed, be included in the action.
Petersen moved, seconded by Martin, that Commission
recommend to Council approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a Service
Station identified as Good Year Service Center, as outlined in Case #88-14,
contingent upon a provision included in the SUP to prohibit the dispensing of
fuel for this use or any future use of the site and the following conditions as
outlined by the Planner in his memorandum of 6-1-88:
• 1. The proposed development meets locational criteria established in
Section VI.C.1 of the City Code.
2. The proposed development will not unreasonably increase traffic volumes
on Lexington Avenue.
3. The development is proposed on a lot exceeding the 24,000 square foot
minimum lot size.
4. The proposed developments meets the special site plan requirements of
Section VI.C.2 of the City Code, that the landscaping in lieu of a screen fence
is found acceptable and that access to the site with a divided entrance has
been determined to be acceptable by the City Engineer.
Motion carried. (Petersen, Martin, Meury, Petersen, Piotrowski and Zehm voting
in favor; Probst and Carlson opposed) (6-2)
Probst stated his opposition to the motion was based on the fact that he is not
convinced the site plan functions as appropriately as it should. Petersen
agreed with Probst and advised he is not opposed to the uses on the site and
suggested the applicant consider a more functional site plan.
Member Meury questioned if Burger King and Goodyear had reviewed the site plan
as proposed; he commented that both organizations have constructed several
stores and probably have their engineering staff review the traffic and site
plan.
Sikora advised both tenants have reviewed and approved the site plan.
• Planner Bergly advised that Glen VanWormer, SEH Traffic Engineer, had briefly
reviewed the site plan and would be submitting a written report for Council;
VanWormer had commented there might be some internal traffic problems. Bergly
noted VanWormer had stated he may recommend some changes in the site plan if
necessary, such as realignment due to crossing movements at the entrance which
take place in a relative short space.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, June 1, 1988
Page 6
• CASE #88-14 (Cont'd) Sikora stated he would review VanWormer's report prior
to the Council meeting and would consider amending the
site plan based on proposed recommendations.
Petersen moved, seconded by Piotrowski, that Commission
recommend approval of the Special Use Permit for operation of a Fast Food
Restaurant identified as Burger King, outlined in Case #88-15, contingent upon
the following:
1. The applicant meeting the conditions of approval as outlined on page 5
of the Planner's memorandum of 6-1-88.
2. The installation of a bypass lane in the drive-thru area, as recommended
by the City Engineer, to accommodate traffic on site.
Martin moved to amend the motion, seconded by Zehm, to
require the applicant to contact Ramsey County and the YMCA in Shoreview to
work out possible methods to alleviate the problem of pedestrian traffic
crossing Lexington Avenue from the YMCA to this site, and to require the
applicant to incorporate the marked crosswalks and stop signs for pedestrian
traffic on site between the Retail/Goodyear Service Store and Burger King
parking area as discussed.
Petersen commented the crosswalk requirement should be included with the
recommendation for the site plan. He also stated he did not agree with the
requirement for applicant discussions with the Shoreview YMCA and Ramsey County
• based on the fact it is not requirement for other applicants to do so.
Amendment to motion carried. (Martin, Zehm, Carlson, Probst, Malone voting in
favor; Petersen, Piotrowski and Meury opposed) (5-3)
Original motion as amended carried. (Petersen, Piotrowski, Malone, Martin,
Meury, Zehm voting in favor; Probst and Carlson opposed) (6-2)
Petersen moved, seconded by Carlson, that Commission
recommend to Council denial of the Site Plan for Case #88-14 and #88-15, based
on the interior traffic problems, no identification of use for retail space and
the consensus of the Commission that a more functional site plan could be
submitted by the applicant. Motion carried. (Petersen, Carlson, Probst,
Piotrowski, Malone voting in favor; Zehm, Martin, and Meury opposed) (5-3)
William Sikora advised Commission that prior to the Council consideration of
the application he would meet with the Church and YMCA to discuss possible
solutions to alleviate pedestrian crossing problems. He also agreed to meet
with the City Traffic Engineer to discuss the internal circulation on site and
will work to amend the site plan.
CASE #-88-16; Acting Chair Meury opened the public hearing at 9: 10
SUP FOR HOME p.m. and Deputy Clerk Iago verified the publication of
OCCUPATION, the Notice of Hearing in the New Brighton Bulletin on
4519 LAKESHORE May 5, 1988, and mailing to affected property owners
PKWY, N. BEGGIN the same date.
• Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 6-1-88, relative to the application for a
SUP for a home occupation to operate a beauty shop in the lower level of a
residence in an R-1 district. He explained the owner would be the only beauty
operator and would use only one chair/sink station. He advised the application
meets all ordinance criteria and exceeds the parking requirement.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, June 1, 1988
Page 7
CASE #88-16 (Cont'd) Bergly recommended approval of the SUP to allow a
one-person beauty shop in a dwelling, subject to
compliance with all zoning ordinance stipulations as discussed in his report.
• Commission discussed the definition of "personal services" which are permitted
only in the B-2 districts. After discussion, it was the consensus of the
Commission that other items listed in the definition of personal services are
performed in residential districts and concurred that one beauty operator would
not constitute a business use.
Commission questioned what other licenses were required by the applicant and
how many clients she anticipated per day.
Nancy Beggin advised she is a State licensed beauty operator and the State
requires written zoning approval for home operations. She stated there would be
approximately 5 or 6 clients per day to begin with and would not exceed 10
clients per day. Beggin advised she would operate the home occupation Monday
thru Friday, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and work only
occasionally for special events on Saturdays.
Acting Chair Meury asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in
favor of or opposed to this matter. There was no response and the public
hearing was closed at 9: 15 p.m.
Probst moved, seconded by Zehm, that Commission
recommend approval of Case #88-16, Special Use Permit for a home occupation to
operate a one-operator beauty shop, with one chair/sink station, at 4519
Lakeshore Parkway, Nancy and Glen Beggin, subject to compliance with all zoning
ordinance stipulations for home occupations as listed in the Planner's
• memorandum of 6-1-88. Motion carried unanimously. (8-0)
CASE #881-7; MINOR Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 6-1-88, relative
SUBD. & CONSOLIDATION to the lot split and consolidation application.
DELLWOOD AVE. , JESSUP
AND AREND
Bergly stated the applicants propose to divide Lot 13, Block 5, of Josephine
Hills Plat #2 in a manner that would combine the upland areas surrounding the
pond with the appropriate adjoining lots they own. The applicants jointly
purchased Lot 13; the lot is largely water. Bergly stated Ramsey County has
approved the line as initially proposed; the Recorder's office reviewed the
split and advised it is a common point that they can legally define without
surveyors.
The Planner stated Mr. Jessup currently maintains the parcel of land adjacent
to his property and advises Mr. Arend has agreed to the proposed split as
submitted with the application.
Dwight Jessup, 3350 Dellwood Avenue, stated the previous owner wanted to sell
the lot for building. Jessup explained that most of Lot 13 is under a flowage
easement with Rice Creek Watershed District and the land was jointly purchased
to prohibit building on the lot and as a protection to preserve the natural
environment of the wetland.
• Commission questioned if Lot 14 with the proposed consolidation would be
divisible in the future.
Bergly stated he did not believe the lot as combined would be divisible with
sufficient buildable area, due to the setback requirements.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, June 1, 1988
Page 8
CASE #88-17 (Cont'd) Member Zehm questioned if the lots 12 and 14 would be
consolidating the parcels defined as A & B.
• Jessup advised Lot 13 would disappear and new legal descriptions would be
prepared in accordance with the survey submitted.
After discussion, Commission concurred that Lot 13 as shown divided into
Parcels A & B should be consolidated to the adjacent properties.
Zehm moved, seconded by Malone, that Commission
recommend to Council approval of Case #88-17, Minor Subdivision and
Consolidation, as outlined in the survey dated 6-1-88 and per recommendations
of City staff. Motion carried unanimously. (8-0)
CASE #88-18; SITE Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 6-1-88, relative
REVIEW, BLEACHERS to the proposed site plan for placement of permanent
AT MOUNDS VIEW bleachers at Mounds View High School, as identified on
the Master Plan.
Bergly explained that the school district is proposing to replace temporary
bleachers with permanent bleachers and adding some bituminous walks which will
connect the bleachers with the existing walk system. He stated there is a slope
with approximately 12 feet of elevation change which was constructed when the
athletic fields were graded and will naturally accommodate the bleachers.
Bergly commented the seating would accommodate 2,000-2,500 persons.
The Planner advised the applicant would be seeking approval from Rice Creek
Watershed District as this is a nonresidential use and requires their approval.
• John Oslund of Mounds View School District and Architect Bill Martin were
present and advised funding was received from the Mounds View Light Brigade and
approval from the School District was received to begin the project of placing
permanent bleachers on this site. Oslund advised they were seeking permission
and are planning to begin the project late this summer for usage in the fall.
Bill Martin explained the placement of the bleachers on the slope would provide
a better viewing angle and would accommodate the people who currently stand to
view events at the site. Martin stated the existing bleachers had been in place
for 20 years and were well worn; the new bleachers would be constructed of
aluminum footboards and seats and should last a number of years. He noted the
overall goal is to upgrade the site to high school athletic standards.
Member Malone asked what is the seating capacity for the bleachers currently on
site.
Oslund advised the current seating capacity is for approximately 450 persons,
however, he pointed out that since the field lighting was installed the current
attendance was approximately 1,500 persons; many persons currently stand or sit
on the grass adjacent to the bleachers. He explained the school was not trying
to encourage a larger attendance by changing the seating capacity only to
facilitate persons attending sports functions. Oslund stated the bleachers
would be only on one side of the field.
Commission discussed the parking problems at the school.
Oslund advised there has been no parking problems in conjunction with evening
special events at the school and arrangements have recently been made with the
Ryder Bus Terminal to provide parking for 400 vehicles at their site.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, June 1, 1988
Page 9
CASE #88-18 (Cont'd) Commission Members Zehm and Meury, residents in the
• area, advised they were not aware of any parking
problems in conjunction with sports events at the school.
Member Zehm questioned if the temporary bleachers would be used in another area
of the school grounds.
Oslund advised if a section for seating approximately 50 persons could be
salvaged it would be placed near the baseball field.
Probst moved, seconded by Martin, that Commission
recommend approval of Case #88-18, Site Plan Modification to replace the
existing temporary bleachers with permanent bleachers at Mounds View Senior
High School, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (8-0)
STATUS REPORT; Chair of the Task Force Dennis Probst reported on the
I-35W/694 LAND May 25 meeting.
STUDY TASK FORCE
Probst advised he anticipated a draft report would be prepared for Commission
review at the regular Planning Commission meeting in July.
Probst commended Paul Malone for the fine job he has done recording the
minutes.
COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Winiecki reported on items of interest to
the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT Probst moved, seconded by Carlson, that the meeting be
adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
(8-0)
Calvin Meury, Jr. , Acting Chair