HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes AGENDA
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS
WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1988 - 7:30 P.M.
VILLAGE HALL
1. Call to Order and Roll Call .
2. Approval of Minutes of June 1 , 1988, Planning Commission Meeting.
3. Case #88-19, Variance from minimum landscape area in a business
district at 3755 Dunlap Street, Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
r,4. Case #88-20, Side Yard Variance for a greenhouse in a residence
district at 3162 No. Hamline Avenue, Lowell and Kathy Anderson.
5. Case #88-21, Lot Split/Minor Subdivision for a residential lot at
4463 Old Highway 10, Phyllis Bona.
6. Case #88-22, Site Plan Review and Variance for parking lot surface
material at Bethel College.
7. Discussion and recommendation to City Council on Planning Study at
NE I-35W and I-694.
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, July 6, 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, Ray McGraw,
Dennis Probst, Barbara Piotrowski, Dorothy Zehm and Dave
Carlson.
Absent: Chairman Robert Curtis, Peter Martin and Scott Petersen.
Also Present: Planner John Bergly and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago.
APPROVE MINUTES Commission was advised by Deputy Clerk Iago that the
June Planning minutes should reflect Chairman Robert
Curtis as absent.
Moved by Malone, seconded by Zehm, that the Minutes of
the June 1, 1988, Planning Commission meeting be approved with the correction as
noted by Deputy Clerk Iago. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0)
CASE #88-19; VAR. Planner Bergly reviewed his report dated 7-6-88 relative
LANDSCAPED AREA, to the application for a variance from minimum landscape
3755 DUNLAP ST, area requirements by Northwestern Bell.
NORTHWESTERN BELL
Bergly stated the application is proposing to expand the storage yard 20 feet
east into the existing parking area and to add an equivalent area for parking on
the east end of the present parking lot. He explained the current requirement for
• landscaped area in the I-2 District is 25 percent of the site. Bergly stated the
site is located in an industrial area that evidently was developed prior to
adoption of the current standards in the zoning ordinance and currently 16.9
percent of the site is landscaped; with the proposed expansion, the landscaped
area will be reduced to 14.2 percent of the site.
The Planner referred Commission to the Board of Appeals minutes of 6-16-88,
recommending approval of the application.
Bergly stated that front yard setbacks in the area generally conform with current
requirements, however, parking setbacks and landscaped areas are far below the
minimums required. He advised the proposal for change by Northwestern Bell would
be in compliance for what currently exists in this area based on the fact the
intent of the zoning ordinance is to maintain a general uniformity of development
in the various districts. Bergly explained the "non-conforming" provision assume
that existing scattered use developed prior to adoption of the ordinance would be
gradually phased out or brought into conformity through redevelopment. He stated
that it is extremely unlikely that changes in this area will ever occur that
would bring the predominate nature of the area into ordinance conformity.
The Planner stated the applicant is proposing to maintain the required 20-foot
front yard for parking setback and the proposed reduction in landscaped area
would maintain uniformity in the area as the surrounding properties now have less
than 10 percent landscaped area.
Bergly recommended approval of the proposed variance of 10.8 percent landscaped
• area based on the fact that surrounding industrial area was developed at lower
standards than now required, the variance would not cause the subject property to
be out of character with surrounding development and the proposed front yard
parking setback of 20-feet meets the current ordinance requirement.
Acting Chair Meury questioned if the additional parking spaces were necessary; he
suggested a variance for parking could be considered rather than for landscaped
area.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, July 6, 1988
Page 2
CASE #88-19 (Cont'd) Bergly advised the applicant indicated the parking area
was necessary.
• Bob Dakken, representing Northwestern Bell, explained there are three
construction crews at the site and parking is a problem particularly during the
summer months when the large reels of cable are stored at the site. He stated the
parking lot is full in the early morning hours and again at the end of the work
day; during the remaining daytime hours the parking presents no problems.
Member Malone questioned the seriousness of the parking situation.
Dakken stated parking presents a serious problem occasionally; vehicles could
park on the street, however, the street is narrow and that could create problems.
Member Zehm questioned if the landscaping would be disturbed or if additional
landscaping is proposed.
Dakken advised the landscaping would remain as is along the building and along
either side of the driveway. He explained there is no additional landscaping
proposed.
Planner Bergly stated the existing landscaping is close to edge of the new
parking area and the grade will have to be taken up in the parking area; he
advised the current landscaping should be sufficient.
Member Piotrowski questioned why a dumpster and sand currently occupy 2-1/2
parking spaces on site if parking is a problem at this time.
Dakken advised the dumpster, sand and trailers were placed in the present
• location on a temporary basis; the applicant will most probably move those items
into the expanded storage area.
Malone commented that Commission had recommended denial of a similar variance
requested in this area. He stated at this site there does not appear to be a
genuine need for the additional parking on the east; the parking problem exists
only during specific times of the day.
Commission discussed the possibility of utilizing off-site parking with an
adjacent property owner; questioned if parking meets the requirements for the
area.
Bergly advised he had not reviewed the parking requirements due to the fact the
applicant was not proposing to reduce the parking area.
Carlson moved, seconded by Piotrowski, that Commission
recommend to Council approval of Case #88-19, variance request for reducing the
required landscape area from 16.9 to 14.2 percent, 3755 Dunlap Street,
Northwestern Bell, based on the following:
1. The surrounding industrial area was developed at lower standards than now
required, especially in regard to parking setbacks and landscaped area
requirements.
2. The variance will not cause the subject property to be out of character
with surrounding development.
• 3. The proposed front yard parking setback of 20 feet meets the ordinance
requirements.
Member Probst expressed opposition; he did not favor making a bad situation
worse.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, July 6, 1988
Page 3
CASE #88-19 (Cont'd) Member McGraw commented that the variance not create
problems for surrounding development and that uniformity
• would be maintained in the area.
Motion carried. (Carlson, Piotrowski, McGraw, Meury and Zehm voting in favor;
Malone and Probst opposed) (5-2)
CASE #88-20; VAR. Acting Chair Meury advised Commission the application
SIDE YARD SETBACK, for a side yard setback variance at 3162 North Hamline
3162 NO. HAMLINE, Ave. , was withdrawn by Lowell Anderson.
L. ANDERSON
CASE #88-21; MINOR Planner Bergly referred Commission to his report of
SUBD. , 4463 OLD HWY 7-6-88, relative to the application for a lot split of
10, P. BONA Lot 11, Block 2, Lakeshore Homesites Addition, Phyllis
Bona.
Bergly explained the applicant is requesting to divide a platted residential lot
into lots which would meet or exceed Zoning Ordinance requirements for minimum
lot area,width, depth and building setbacks. He stated the proposed dividing line
follows the general alignment of a natural drainage swale. Bergly advised the
placement of the existing home on Parcel "A" exceeds the front and side yard
requirements.
The Planner noted one of the small buildings adjacent to the drainage swale
encroaches on the lot line proposed for dividing Parcels "A" and "B" and the
other building encroaches into the side yard created by the proposed division.
• Bergly recommended the lot split be approved as proposed subject to the following
conditions:
1. A drainage and utility easement be provided along the lot line dividing
Parcel "A" and Parcel "B", the width of which to be determined by the
Village Engineer and the swale should be regraded to follow the lot line
and physically provide property definition.
2. The sheds that encroach on the new lot line be moved to meet the 10 foot
setback requirement for accessory buildings in the R-1 district.
Commission discussed the building envelope on the parcel proposed to be split.
Jack Bell, Attorney representing Phyllis Bona, explained the triangular piece of
property attached to the lot was obtained by means of a land exchange with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He stated that Mrs. Bona intends to sell the
parcel with the existing home identified as Parcel "A" and retain the other
parcel.
Member Carlson questioned if any variances would be necessary.
Bergly advised no variances are required.
Member Malone questioned if the applicant would be agreeable to the conditions of
approval as recommended by the Planner.
• Bona stated she would be removing the storage buildings from the property. Bell
commented the applicant had no objections to the other conditions stipulated
although he did not feel the conditions were necessary.
Bergly explained he had discussed the drainage and utility easements with the
Village Engineer; Peters indicated he would recommend provision of a wide
easement to encompass the whole drainage area or request the ditch be
straightened to define and divide the lots.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, July 6, 1988
Page 4
CASE #88-21 (Cont'd) Malone moved, seconded by Probst, that Commission
recommend to Council approval of Case #88-21, Minor
• Subdivision/Lot Split, Lot 11, Block 2, Lakeshore Homesites Addition, Phyllis
Bona, subject to:
1. A drainage and utility easement be provided along the lot line dividing
Parcel "A" and Parcel "B", that easement to extend an equal distance on
either side of the lot line as acceptable to the City Engineer and the
swale be regarded to follow the lot line and provide property definition.
2. The sheds that encroach on the newly created lot line be moved to meet
the required 10 foot setback for accessory buildings in the R-1 District.
Motion carried unanimously. (7-0)
CASE #88-22; SITE Planner Bergly referred Commission to his report of
PLAN REVIEW & VAR. 7-6-88, regarding the site plan review and variance
PKING. LOT SURFACE for parking lot surface material as submitted by Bethel
MATERIAL, BETHEL COL. College.
The Planner extended his apology to Board of Appeals Chair Barbara Piotrowski and
stated that although the application identifies the need for a variance it was
not received prior to the Board of Appeals June meeting.
Acting Chair Meury questioned if the usual procedure was for the application to
be reviewed by the Board of Appeals prior to Planning Commission review.
Bergly stated in this case it involves a technicality in surface materials and
not a dimensional configuration; it was his understanding past policy had been
• the Board of Appeals reviewed variances in terms of visual or physical impact.
Member Piotrowski stated she preferred all applications for variances be reviewed
by the Board of Appeals and stated the matter had been discussed at length last
year with Planner Miller, Zoning Administrator Iago and Clerk Administrator
Morrison.
Piotrowski moved, seconded by Carlson, that Commission
table Case #88-22 until proper procedure has been followed and the Board of
Appeals has reviewed and made recommendation relative to the application. Motion
carried. (Piotrowski, Carlson, McGraw and Probst voting in favor; Malone and Zehm
opposed; Meury abstained) (4-2-1)
Commission discussed the procedure for receiving applications and forwarding same
to the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals.
Craig Hjelle, representing Bethel College, stated it was not his intent to bypass
the Board of Appeals only to expedite the application due to time constraints for
completion of the project. It was his understanding the proper procedures were
being followed.
After discussion, Commission requested the Planner review the current procedures
for application submission deadlines, time constraints for preparation of the
planning reports for Board of Appeals and Planning Commission consideration at
their meetings and make recommendation to Commission at the next regular meeting
held August 3rd.
Acting Chair Meury commented that the abandoned vehicles and unsightly materials
were still present near the construction site of the new storage building. Meury
stated he recalled the applicant had advised the materials and vehicles would be
removed within 30 days.
Hjelle stated the equipment will eventually be stored inside the new building
and he is working with the administration and students to remove the vehicles.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, July 6, 1988
Page 5
CASE #87-35; LAND Acting Chair Meury referred Commission members to the
STUDY, I-694/I-35W, I-694/I35W Task Force Report and recommendations for
TASK FORCE REPORT development of the vacant land at the NE corner of the
• intersection of I-694 and I-35W in Arden Hills.
Dennis Probst, Chair of the Task Force Committee, requested a review of the
report and attendant recommendations by the Planning Commission with a motion for
submission of same to the Council for further review and action on the
recommendations.
Probst explained the report is organized in terms of an introduction, inventory
and analysis of the existing site features, discussion of apparent development
options for the site as determined by the Task Force, and concludes with the Task
Force recommendation. He stated that minutes from all the Task Force meetings and
correspondence from various consultants who participated in the study are
included in the Appendix. Probst extended his thanks to all the persons who were
actively involved in the Task Force.
Probst reviewed the development options listed under Alternatives I, II and II
and outlined on page 25 of the report. He stated the "Development Option Matrix"
in the report evaluates each of the options as they relate to anticipated
development/timetable for development; market values - current and anticipated;
taxation - current and anticipated; City portion tax increment; major public
improvements; Village involvement; issues and significant benefits.
Probst briefly outlined the alternatives as follows:
- Alternative I - Do nothing and allow site development to proceed in
whatever form and pace the current I-1 zoning and market conditions
dictate.
Probst commented that this development in this area has been very slow and
buildings are of lessor quality than other areas of the Village.
- Alternative II - Rezone the area into a Planned Unit Development District;
establish planning and design criteria to assure development of the highest
and best type and quality.
Probst explained this would be a minimal step, without really involving
extensive participation on the part of the Village. He advised the zoning
district criteria would be set by Commission.
- Alternative III - Become involved in promoting the type and quality of
development the Village would prefer to see on the subject property; this
will likely include Rezoning of the property, Tax Increment Financing,
Requests for Proposals to Developers and a willingness by the Village to
become involved in lot consolidation and condemnation proceedings.
Probst noted that the taxation information and correspondence from the traffic
engineer at SEH had not been received and included in the report at this time. He
statedthe traffic engineer has advised single access to the site area would be
adequate. Probst advised the information should be available prior to submission
to the Council.
Probst also reviewed the Site Assets and Liabilities as outlined on page 29 of
the report. He reported that interest in the site has been generated and
developers have been contacting him and Planner Bergly to discuss development of
the site.
In conclusion, Probst reviewed the recommendations on pages 31 and 32 of the
report which were developed as a result of the studies conducted by the task
force and are in line with objectives the group had set for itself. He advised
the Task Force was requesting a motion from Commission which recommends
acceptance of the recommendations of the Task Force and submission to Council for
their review and return to the Planning Commission at their next regular meeting
held August 3rd with comments and questions or other Council action on the
matter.
Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, July 6, 1988
Page 6
CASE #87-35 (Cont'd) Carlson questioned if there are any drawbacks to the
proposed recommendation.
Probst stated the big issue is the financial risk involved and the ideal
situation would be to receive proposals and coordinate improvements with the
development so that all happens at the same time and the tax increments would be
available to pay for the improvements. He advised if the Village proceeds in that
fashion and development does not occur the Village would still have the
obligations to pay the bonds for the improvement; there is an element of risk.
Commission discussed the long term benefits to Arden Hills and the establishment
of a Community Development Commission. It was the general consensus of Commission
members that it would be worth the expenditure to hire an outside firm with
expertise in the area of Tax Increment Financing to handle the details of the
program; Bergly advised he works with firms who have such expertise. Malone
commented the newly appointed Clerk Administrator may have had experience in this
area during his employment with the City of New Brighton.
Probst recommended Arden Hills continue to work with the City of New Brighton in
order for both cities to benefit from development of the area.
Acting Chair Meury thanked the members of the Task Force and Planner Bergly for
their time and efforts to submit an excellent report to the Commission.
Carlson moved, seconded by Piotrowski, that Commission
accept the Task Force Planning Study for NE I-694/I-35W, the recommendation for
the Village to pursue Alternative III and the recommendations outlined on pages
• 31 and 32 of the report, and furthermore, that Commission submit the report to
Council at their next regular meeting held July 11th for their review and
respectfully request their comments, questions or other action be returned to the
Planning Commission at their next regular meeting held August 3, 1988. Motion
carried unanimously. (7-0)
COUNCIL REPORT Planner Bergly reported on items of interest to the
Commission.
ADJOURNMENT Malone moved, seconded by Zehm, that the meeting be
adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0)
Calvin Meury, Jr. , Acting Chair