Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-02-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes • AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. VILLAGE HALL 1. Call to Order and Roll Call . 2. Approval of Minutes of February 3, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting. 3. Case #88-03, Lot division and combination of two lots at 443-North Snelling Avenue, Weiber and Podlasek. 4. Case #8804, Lot split at 1960 West County Road E2, Eldon Elseth, Owner, John Robinson, applicant. 5. Case #88-05, Side yard variance on Lot 8, Block 2, McClung Third Addition, Bailey. 6. Status report on MnDOT rezoning. • 7. Discussion on Planning Study at Northeast I35W and I694. 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, March 2 , 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, Ray McGraw, Dorothy Absent: Zehm and Dennis Probst. Member Martin arrived at 7:35 p.m. Calvin Meury, Scott Petersen, Rick Savage and Gary Thorn. Also Present: Councilmember Jeanne Winiecki, Planner John Bergly and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. APPROVE MINUTES Malone moved, seconded by Zehm, that the minutes of the February 3, 1988, Planning Commission meeting be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) RESIGNATION; Chairman Curtis advised the Commission that member Rick RICK SAVAGE Savage had submitted his resignation; Savage has been transferred out of state by his employer. Commission members expressed their gratitude to Rick for his service on the Commission and Board of Appeals and requested a letter of appreciation be forwarded to Rick. CASE #88-03; LOT DIV. Commission was referred to Planner's report of 3-2-88, & CONSOL; 4430 NORTH regarding the application for lot division and SNELLING, PODLASEK consolidation of adjoining parcels of land. Planner Bergly explained the application was for redividing adjoining properties to settle an estate. He reviewed the lot configurations before and after the requested action and advised all zoning requirements are met in terms of lot sizes and setbacks. Bergly stated there are no buildings proposed for the lots at this time. Chairman Curtis questioned if there were any easements attached to the property. Bergly stated there are no easements shown on the survey; suggested the Attorney review and approve the survey. Member Zehm asked Bergly to review the potential for further subdivision of the parcels. The Planner stated both parcels are oversized and there would be the potential for at least two more lots, possibly three. He stated he had discussed this with the property owner on the south and they do not wish to consider further division of the property at this time; they were informed that if either of the parcels were sold, subdivision would become extremely difficult. Francis Podlasek, 4430 No. Snelling, explained that the parcels will remain in family ownership and there are no easements on the property to his knowledge. Malone moved, seconded by Probst, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case No. 88-03, Lot Division and Consolidation of two lots at 4430 No. Snelling Avenue, Francis and Judith Podlasek, and Joan Wieber, subject to the review of the survey for identification of easements, and approval by the City Attorney. Motion carried. (Malone, Probst, Curtis, Zehm and Martin voting in favor; McGraw opposed) (5-1 CASE #88-04; LOT Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 2-3-88, outlining SPLIT, 1960 W. CO. the proposal to divide an 11,100 sq.RD. E-2, E ft. lot from a lot containinLSETH & owned by the Elseths, ROBINSON ft. He stated the R-2 Zoning Districtaoallowsllots�068 sq. containing 11,000 sq. ft. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, March 2, 1988 Page 2 CASE #88-04 (Cont'd) Bergly advised the problem with subdivision of this lot is that the County has excess right-of-way, which is a large radius across the northeast corner of the Elseth lot; the actual paved surface has a much tighter radius. He explained the County would favor selling the land, but is technically prohibited from doing so until legislation is changed. Bergly noted the legislation is now pending, as per the letter from Ramsey County Department of Public Works to Mr. Elseth, dated 12-7-87. Bergly reviewed the problems related to the proposed lot split: -The adjoining property has a garage, fence, and driveway that overlap the property line by approximately six feet. If the affected lot line were to be realigned so that the garage, fence and driveway were on the correct property, the proposed lot division would not meet minimum lot size requirements. -At the location of the proposed house there are a number of Oak trees, approximately 6 of the trees would have to be removed to facilitate construction of the home; the applicant did not favor removal of the trees. -Surface storm drainage would flow across the front yard of the lot with the existing house; the lot for the proposed house is slightly depressed and would have to be brought up to an adequate elevation prior to use as a separate lot. Bergly noted this may present problems with different land owners. -Access to New Brighton Road is steep; it would be preferable to access from County Road E-2. An access permit would be required from either road. Bergly advised if the applicant were to acquire the additional lot area from Ramsey County, by purchasing the excess right-of-way, • e the garage, fence and driveway encroachment and realignment tofolot lines uld vproblem; also it would eliminate the need to remove the Oak trees, as the house could be realigned on the property and meet setback requirements. Bergly noted if the excess right-of-way was purchased and the proposed lot split was realigned, an access permit would still have to be obtained and a drainage plan should be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The Planner recommended that the City defer action on this request until such time as legislation has resolved the matter of sale of excess property to adjoining benefitted property owners. He suggested in the interim the applicant and the prospective buyer could resolve the other issues discussed. Eldon Elseth, owner of the property at 1960 W. County Road E-2, requested the City not defer action at this time, to facilitate the sale of the property. John Robinson, applicant, stated he would prefer a decision at this time as the value of the land would change considerably should the excess right-of-way be obtained prior to sale of the property. He stated he would continue to pursue purchase of the excess right-of-way; he did not favor removal of the Oak trees and noted the house could be placed in a better position if the adjoining right-of-way were obtained. Elseth pointed out the proposal meets lot area and setback requirements and to Postpone action would put a burden on the sale of the lot; he requested the Commission take action at this time. . Planner Bergly advised the proposal meets minimum standards without considerin the encroachments and there will be encumbrances until the encroachments are g resolved. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, March 2, 1988 Page 3 CASE #88-04 (Cont'd) Chairman Curtis requested the Planner review the surface • drainage problems; questioned if there was potential for the County to refuse sale due to drainage issue. Bergly described the natural drainage pattern; he stated a problem could occur if the lot were split, as a drainage easement would have to be provided across one of the lots. Curtis expressed concern regarding the encroachment. Elseth suggested the lot split could be approved subject to the resolution of the encroachment. Robinson suggested the encroachment could be resolved by granting an easement for the garage and driveway. There was discussion relative to the rear yard setback, as shown on the survey; Member Probst requested Planner interpretation. Bergly advised that on a curved frontage it is questionable as to where the rear yard occurs. Robinson suggested he could apply for a front setback variance, approximately 15 ft. from the front property line, which would alleviate some of the problems discussed this evening. Planner Bergly stated that the proposed lot is not a lot of record; in the case of a lot of record the Commission would consider variance requests due to land hardships. In this case the Commission would be creating a lot with variances, which is not City policy. Commission members consensus was that they preferred not to create a lot with irregular lot lines and known encroachments; such action could create future legal problems. The Commission agreed that economic issues related to the sale of the property cannot be considered; also, they were of the opinion that the request is premature and the applicant should resolve the issues of the encroachment and purchase of right-of-way from the County prior to submitting the lot split, as per the Planner's recommendation. Probst moved, seconded by Martin, that Commission table Case #88-04, Lot Split at 1960 West County Road E-2. Motion carried unanimously (6-0) CASE #88-05; VAR. Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 3-2-88; relative to SIDEYARD SETBACK, the application for sideyard setback variance, Lot 8, LOT 8, BLK 2, Block 2, McClung's Third Addition, Kevin Bailey. McCLUNG'S 3RD ADDN, KEVIN BAILEY Bergly explained the request is for a two or three foot side yard variance for a residence to be constructed on a pie-shaped, cul-de-sac lot. The Planner noted the shallow lot depth of 123 feet and the required 30-foot rear . yard setback significantly restricts the building envelope. Also, he noted the Zoning Code requires the lot depth in an R-1 District to be 130 feet; Bergly was unsure as to how the 123 ft. depth occurred. He pointed out the pedestrian walkways along both the north side yard line and the rear lot line provide open space that visually appears as part of the lot and provides for additional separation between the homes. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, March 2, 1988 Page 4 • CASE #88-05 (Cont'd) Bergly stated the ends of the house, abutting the side yards, are not parallel with the side yard lines; therefore, although the farthest projecting point the side yard by two or three feet, the wall at the fmidpoint the hsofdoes the houseinfr is on actually 5 ft. inside the side yard setback line. The visual impact on the Pedestrian pathway would be lessened. Bergly recommended the applicant move the house to the south, for a 10 ft. setback, and the variance would be for two feet on the north side of the property. He noted that the variance would be house. only for the corner portion of the The Planner referred Commission to the minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting of 2/25/882 unanimously recommending approval of the requested variance. Kevin Bailey, applicant, advised the Commission members he had "down sized" the plans for his home, however, he tried to keep the house comparable with others in the area. He stated that he had received written approval from both the adjacent property owners. Bailey stated he would prefer to have the setback variance approved for both sides, rather than move the home to the south side of the lot. Member Martin expressed concern that a lot which has been recently platted is forced to request variances due to the lot dimensions; he stated this is not the fault of the applicant, rather the developer. • Member Malone commented that although the City does allow ers to lots in a platted area that are below required dimensions,dbutlstill havenalude sufficent building envelope, it is the policy of the City to advise the developer that no additional variances will be granted for home construction. It was Malone's opinion there was not an identifiable hardship and there is a sufficient building envelope without granting the variance. There was discussion relative to the placement of the proposed home on the lot; it was suggested that the house could be placed further back on the lot and the applicant could request a rear yard variance, the hardship being the shallow lot depth. Bailey stated he was concerned about the street appearance of the home if it were placed further back on the lot. Member McGraw commented that the application should be considered as it does not negatively impact the adjacent property owners; it was his opinion the shallow lot depth and shape of the lot could be a hardship considerations. There was discussion relative to whether or not a hardship was identifiable; some Commission members were of the opinion there is a sufficient building envelope to accommodate a home. Mov recommend to Council denial ofbCaseh#88s05, SideyardaSetbackhVariance, Lon Block 2, McClung Third Addition, Kevin Bailey, based on the io Lot 8, C determination there is no identifiable hardship of the land. Motion lfailed. (Zehm, Malone, Martin voting in favor; Curtis, McGraw and Probst opposed) (3-3 In discussion, Chairman Curtis stated the lot does not comply to depth ) requirements, and it is pie-shaped; he advised Commission he would be willing to entertain a motion for a rear yard setback variance, based on the rationale the lot depth is shallow and substandard. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, March 2, 1988 Page 5 CASE #88-05 (Cont'd) Member Martin suggested the porch, shown on the rear of • the proposed home, be reduced to facilitate the home placement on the lot within the required setbacks. Planner Bergly advised that the plat was approved with two variances for lot depth and width, per minutes of the Council included in Case File #83-13. Commission discussed the possibility of amending the application to request a rear yard setback variance; another option would be to wait for Council determination or amend the request prior to the Council hearing. Planner Bergly suggested the Commission define some parameters for the rear yard setback variance. Member Malone stated the Commission recognizes the fact that when the lot was platted, there were two variances attached; the usual policy has been to advise the developer that a sufficient building envelope exists and there would be no further variances granted to facilitate construction on such lots. He also noted that Commission has reviewed other alternatives for the applicant. Bailey stated he would not object to requesting a rear yard setback variance and he would be prepared to modify the request if Council approval is not received. STATUS RPT. ; Planner Bergly reported that Council had acted upon the MN/DOT TRUCK Planning Commission recommendation to consider Rezoning SITE, CO RD I of the MnDot Truck Station Site; Council initiated a to 1-2, • the Regular Council MeetingoofnMarch114, 1988.and He furthereadvisedlic thateCoung c lat had First Reading on an Ordinance amendment to the Zoning Code, which would amend the requirements for driveway widths, in order to conform with State and County driveway width requirements. Bergly explained the Variances requested with the application would be eliminated upon Council approval of both items. Bergly explained the Commission had reviewed the Site Plan in some depth at an earlier meeting; the applicant has returned with prototypes of the metal storage building proposed for the site for Commission review. The applicant is requesting Commission review the plans for site expansion and construction of the storage building, which is scheduled for this fall. The Planner advised it would be appropriate for the Commission to make a recommendation to Council on the Site Plan, so it could be approved along with the Rezoning, and respond to the metal storage building proposed. Bergly explained the applicant had proposed extensive landscaping in the front yard, to break up the building facade. Member Zehm questioned if the building would be visible from the street and if brick could be placed along the front of the building. Bergly advised there are a number of trees along the front of the building currently. With the proposed landscaping the building would be somewhat visible, however, it would not be feasible to screen the entire building front. . Commission questioned if metal buildings were permitted in the Industrial district; the Zoning Administrator advised they are not prohibited, however, the City strongly recommends use of other materials for buildings. MnDot representatives advised it would not be economically feasible to use brick in the construction of the building. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, March 2, 1988 Page 6 MnDOT SITE (Cont'd) Member Probst commented that the site currently is • unattractive; it was his opinion the metal building would improve the aesthetics. He questioned the color of the metal building and stated he would prefer a lighter beige color. MnDot representatives advised the building color would be a dark brown, earth tone. After discussion, Commission determined that although City policy has been to discourage metal buildings in the City, in this case the building would be compatible with the general character of the area along County Road I and the adjoining arsenal property. Commission agreed they would not favor use of metal buildings in other areas of the City. Commission discussed the landscaping and lighting of the site. The Planner advised a landscaping plan had been submitted and discussed at an earlier meeting. MnDot representatives explained the landscape plan submitted included the are near the metal building proposed. They explained the exterior lighting locations would not be changed; some of the lighting would be on photo-electric sensors and the remainder would be operated by switches, for use when needed. Member Malone recalled the applicant had discussing the proposed County Road I improvement in conjunction with the landscaping. • MnDot representatives stated the improvement may prohibit placement of th landscaping on the portion of the site near the metal buildin for a e one year. g pproximately It was the consensus of the Commission they were not opposed to the Site Plan proposal, as follows: -An additional structure on the rear of an existing building. -The proposed construction metal storage building to house equipment that is currently stored outside. -Visual reduction of existing lighting, due to building placement and installation of controlled lighting for use when needed. -Landscaping appears to screen the building sufficiently; part of the proposed landscaping may not be planted expediently, due to proposed road improvement along County Road I. -Driveway variance would be eliminated with the Ordinance amendment and the landscaped area coverage variance would be eliminated with the Rezoning. -Drainage plan review and approval by the City Engineer. -The I-2 zoning is reasonable since it is contiguous to adjacent I-2 zoning and it more closely reflects the long-term use of the property. Malone moved, seconded by Zehm, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #88-01, Site Plan Review, MnDot Truck Station Site, County Road I. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) DISC. ; STUDY Planner Bergly referred Commission to the Planning Study I-694 & I-35W for the land located at the intersection of Highways I-694 and 35W. Member Probst commented that site access is poor; he questioned if the State would consider access at old Highway 10. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, March 2, 1988 Page 7 LAND STUDY (Cont'd) Bergly noted that the City Council has taken three • separate actions to deny connections with old Highway 10. He explained he had discussed with the former planning consultant, the Possibility of a divided entry way from Highway 96 down to the site, with fairly wide lanes on each side, so that if a blockage did occur on either lane, the traffic could be routed two ways on the other half of the facility. There is a very wide NSP easement along the entire drive and there would be ample space, if a development were proposed that would warrant an expenditure of that nature. The Planner advised Commission he had received several inquires relative to this area there appears to be interest in the site. Member Zehm questioned if Council had expressed an interest in Tax Increment Financing. Member Malone explained his observation of Council discussions, relating to the study, was that Council favored pursuing some type of incentive for development in the area. Councilmember Winiecki agreed. Bergly noted there appears to be sufficient problems involved with development of this area to warrant consideration of some type of incentive consideration; multiple ownerships, poor access, existing uses, and encumbrances on properties in the form of easements. Planner Bergly requested Commission define objectives for planning development of the area and provide rationale for public involvement. Commission identified the following objectives: -Study development that offers tax return to the community. -Study bonding alternatives; would have to be developed relatively soon, as bonds may not be available within a short period of time. -Explore "business campus" types of development; corporate headquarters, up-scale business park. Quality development that addresses the image the community would prefer maintained. -Encourage the development of the entire parcel by one entity; improves continuity. -Study removal of uses which are deemed undesirable. -Placing the community in a situation whereby developers are aware of the fact the City is willing to work with them on a development project, rather than the City actively developing the area. -Study Tax Increment Financing; set goals, and time frame. Discuss public improvements; what projects would be necessary, what type of tax return there would be, and length of time it would take to realize benefit of improvement. Members discussed the fact that some the existing uses in the area are less than attractive; it was the consensus of the Commission the research on this matter should be done expeditiously. Planner Bergly noted that Council had requested the study be undertaken, keeping in mind past City policy to encourage quality development in the City. . Commission members Curtis, Probst, Malone, Zehm, and McGraw volunteered to serve on a Task Force to study the issues. Member Martin advised he would attend meetings when he was available. Councilmember Winiecki stated she would also serve. Planner Bergly was asked to Chair the Task Force. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, March 2, 1988 Page 8 • LAND STUDY (Cont'd) It was agreed the first meeting would be held on Wednesday, March 16, at 7:30 p.m. , at the Village Hall. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Winiecki reported on items of interest to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT Malone moved, seconded by Zehm, that the meeting be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) Robert Curtis, Chairman • MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS I-694/I-35W SITE REVIEW TASK FORCE • Wednesday, March 16, 1988, 7:30 P.M. - Public Works Bldg. ROL— L Paul Malone, Peter Martin, Ray McGraw, Dennis Probst, Dorothy Zehm. Also Pre4Pn Planner John Bergly. This task force was established by the Planning Commission and charged with studying the options available to the City In directing the development of the site located at the northeast corner of the Intersection of Interstate Highways I-35W and I-694. The task force will study all the development options and report Its findings to the Planning Commission. OBJ-vim In establishing the task force, the Planning Commission provided It with a number of planning and development objectives. The development obJectives were reviewed and priorItlzed as follows: 1 . To remove existing uses that are likely to have an adverse Impact on the further development of the area. 2. To provide a safe, convenient and attractive entry to the site from Highway 96. • 3. To attract high quality development that will create a positive Image for the community. 4. To attract a 'Business Campus' development that takes full advantage of the slte's location (Interstate highways, lake, etc. ), size, and visibility. 5. To attract development of the entire acreage by one developer. 6. To Increase the potential tax return to the city. The obJectives for planning were also reviewed; they are as follows: i . To prepare a development plan in a timely manner so the advantages of current taxing and bonding programs may be pursued. 2. To have developer participation In defining and planning Improvement needs prior to the City making any committment to undertaking any such Improvements. 3. To develop plans and Implementation strategies that will make the site competitive with those of neighboring communities. 4. To provide the Intlal planning tools whereby the City can be the . catalyst for cooperative planning and development. Page 2 - Planning Commission Task Force Notes, March 16, 1988 nTSrl� After having reviewed and prioritized the objectives, the task force considered the question of why attention was being devoted to this site, since virtually all the others In the City have developed without significant City involvement. It was agreed that this parcel is unique due to its very visible location, yet it is not likely to be developed In a quality manner due to the problems It will present to a potential developer. It was also noted that all of the cities surrounding Arden Hills, namely Shoreview, Mounds View, Roseville, and New Brighton, as well as others in the Immediate area, such as Fridley and Blaine are taking steps to entice developers by offering development incentives. Consequently, for Arden Hills may suffer from a competitive disadvantage, particularlythis site, which poses significant obstacles to development. Member McGraw opined that Arden Hills has many positive attributes for developers to consider, such as a low tax rate, fine location, and ly pleasant te• thisesiteese cantbeimadessuperioritoethetofferings with nofY minimal assistance, other cities. The task force would like to work with interested developers In order to determine possibilities for the site, but before that can happen, the problems it presents must be quantified, and potential developers must made t aware tome future point the task force would like to request rtswisenlwas a . agreed thaha proposals from developers. In the meantime, informal discusssions with several area developers would probably be helpful In order to lndentify both possibilities and problems. Planner Berg1Y stated that some Interest has been shown In the site, and representatives from Towle and/or Colwell Banker might be willing to attend a future meeting of the group in order to explore attends. Both he, an he reresentatives fromer stheselortother developetempt to rs at r at p future attendance of session. The problems inherent to the site were enumerated. They are: 1 . Access - Current access to the site is very poor, since the only just aefewroute feet from its intersection which withirampsefromH135W- ay 96 just 2. Multiple Parcels - The site is presently broken up into numerous lots (sane very small in size), owned by four parties -Harstad, Kem Milling, Minnesota Diversified, and Naegele. 3. General Building Conditions - This is an unknown, which must be explored. It is probable that the land is unencumbered by any negative conditions such as poor soil , drainage, or . contamination with pollutants, but this must be confirmed. Page 3 - Planning Commission Task Force Notes, March 16, 1988 4. Utllitles - It Is believed that utilities (water, sewer, etc. ) are available, but this must also be confirmed. 5. Federal Restrictions - Since the site abuts a Federal wildlife Preserve, development restrictions might be In place. The task force will need to Investigate this possibility. 6. Current Tenancy and Use - The current use of this site Is not believed to be amenable to adjacent high quality develop ment Consequently, it Is presumed that any development Plan would. need to Include provision for the purchase and removal of present businesses and structures. An action plan for dealing with the Identified problems was developed, consisting of the following steps: I. Options for access will be developed and studied. PosslbIlltes Include: Moving the Intersection of Round Lake Boulevard with Highway 96 some distance to the east, and providing some type of traffic control at the resultant Intersection. Extending 13th St NW, or 14th St NW around the southern Perimeter of Round Lake (or along the northern edge of I-694) to an eventual Intersection with Hihway 10 Old 10). g The City's engineers will be asked to attend a future meeting In order to comment upon existing and potential traffic volumes and flows. The county and state wlll be contacted in order to learn of any upgrade plans Involving adjacent roadways that might need to be taken Into consideration. 2. Developers will be made aware of the probable need to consolidate lots. 3. BuIIdIng conditions wlll be examined. The Cl Ws engineers will be asked to provide an opinion concerning the land conditions on the site. 4. Base maps of the site will be obtained from city records or requested from the City's engineers In order to evaluate the need for utilities, the presence of easements, or other encumbrances. 5. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service will be contacted . In order to learn of any development restrictions imposed by them. Page 4 - Planning Commission Task Force Notes, March 16, 1988 6. The city council will be asked to consider appointing representatives o therconcerns Parks those Finance groups many betees takeno the Into task force so consideration. NPVt Meeting The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 23, 1988. An attempt will be made to have a representative from the City's engineering firm present to offer opinions concerning the site or to comment upon access upgrade possibilities. Representatives from Colwell Banker, or another developer will also be invited In order to discuss realistic possibilities for the site.