Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-1988 PTRC Meeting Agenda i AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1988 - 7:30 A.M. VILLAGE HALL 1. Call to Order and Roll Call . 2. Approval of Minutes of December 2, 1987, Planning Commission Meeting. 3. Case 88-01 State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, site plan review for building expansion and minor site modifications at the Arden Hills truck station on County Road I. 4. Discussion of possible changes in regulations for temporary/special event signs, referred from Council meeting of December 14, 1987. 5. Council Report 6. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, January 6, 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, Peter Martin, Calvin Meury, Scott Petersen, Gary Thorn, Paul Malone, Ray McGraw and Dennis Probst. Absent: Richard Savage and Dorothy Zehm. Also Present: Councilmember Jeanne Winiecki, Planner John Bergly and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. OATHS OF OFFICE Councilmember Winiecki administered the oath of office to those Planning Commission members present. NEW APPTMTS. Commission members were advised that Ray McGraw and Dennis Probst would serve as newly appointed members of the Planning Commission; per Council action taken 1/4/88. It was noted that member Paul Malone would move from Alternate position to regular member, Ray McGraw would serve as a regular member and Dennis Probst would serve as Alternate 1; one alternate vacancy remains, for appointment by Council at a later date. Commission members were also advised that Council had appointed Robert Curtis to serve as Chairman. After discussion the members concurred that Calvin Meury serve as Vice Chairman. APPROVE MINUTES Martin moved, seconded by Thorn, that the Minutes of the December 2, 1987, Planning Commission meeting be approved as submitted Motion carried. (Martin, Thorn, Curtis, Petersen, Malone, Probst and McGraw voting in favor; Meury abstained) (7-1) CASE #88-01; SITE Planner Bergly reviewed his revised report of 1/6/88; PLAN REVIEW MN/DOT noting there were several plan revisions that warranted TRUCK STA. EXPANSION the changes in his original report. Bergly suggested the CO. ROAD I; Mn/Dot members discard his original report. Bergly explained the applicant is proposing building expansion and minor site modification of the MN/DOT Truck Station located on the south side of County Road I, east of 35W. The facility is a highway maintenance operation of MnDot Dist. 9; primary service is snow plowing and sanding, along with minor roadway maintenance in the east and northeast metropolitan area. He noted that the highway training center is directly adjacent. Bergly noted that the property is currently zoned R-1 and that Public Uses are permitted in the R-1 District by special use permit. He referred Commission members to the section of his report titled "background", which explained the reasons for consideration of this request as a site plan review. Bergly commented that the Zoning Administrator had discussed the application procedure with the City Attorney and they determined a site plan review would provide the necessary safeguards to the Village. • Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, January 6, 1988 Page 2 • CASE #88-01 (Cont'd) Planner Bergly explained the MnDot proposal as follows: -Construction of an all brick equipment storage/maintenance building; for • enclosure of all trucks and snow plows, to provide security and convenience. -Construction of a metal storage building; to enclose miscellaneous machinery and materials; planned for construction in approximately one year. -Removal of two small frame garages and a pole building. -Construction of a new wider entrance from County Road I, in the central area of the site, to facilitate safer and more efficient movements from and onto County Road I. -Construction of a curb, approximately 25 ft. from the south and 50 ft. from the east property lines to separate the bituminous-surfaced maintenance area from a landscaped buffer strip. -Provision of landscaping along County Road I; similar to the existing front yard landscaping in the northeast corner. -Minor modifications to the site to accommodate the above changes, such as: removal of existing curbs in areas to be bituminous surfaced, relocation of fences, and provision for site drainage (may require ponding on south and east sides of the site) . Bergly advised that the proposed building additions will eliminate most of the objectionable open truck and equipment parking, and open storage, now existing on the site. He explained that the building plans presented this evening show garage doors visible on the south side of the proposed building. Bergly noted that no additional employees will operate out of the facility at this time and adequate employee parking is provided on the site. • The Planner further advised that County Road I was scheduled for improvement in • the near future, therefore, MnDot proposed to make the landscaping improvements after County Road I plans were available. It was brought to his attention that the County Road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years, and, it would be his recommendation that Mn/Dot provide the landscape plan for review at this time. Bergly commented that the proposed 30 ft. wide new entrance is requested to allow trucks with snow plows to enter and leave the site without interfering with traffic on the County Road. It is proposed that the present driveway entrance be retained as an employee entrance. Bergly noted the Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum driveway width of 25 ft. and a variance would be required. He further noted that a variance from minimum landscaped lot area would be required; ordinance requires 65% landscaped lot area in an R-1 District, 25% is proposed. The Planner pointed out that an I-2 District requires 25% landscaped lot area. In conclusion, Bergly stated the proposed building additions and site improvements will make the site more attractive and allow the site to function more efficiently and safely. The site plan meets all ordinance requirements, except minimum landscaped lot area (65% required and 25% proposed) and maximum driveway width (25 ft. is maximum allowed, and 32 ft. is proposed) . Bergly noted that Ramsey County has a minimum requirement of 26 ft. for commercial access to a county road. He further advised if Commission recommends approval, it should be subject to the following: a. Granting of variances for minimum landscaped area and maximum driveway • width. b. Receipt of an access permit from Ramsey County for the proposed new access to County Road I. c. Receipt of a complete final site plan, including landscaping, prior to issuance of a building permit. d. Approval of the site drainage plan by the Village Engineer. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, January 6, 1988 Page 3 CASE #88-01(Cont'd) Chairman Curtis questioned if the Engineer had reviewed a drainage plan for the site as yet. IsBergly advised that the Engineer had reviewed the site drainage plan, but had not • received the calculations from MnDot. The Planner also suggested that Commission may stipulate that the applicant be requested to appear before the Commission for review of the building plans for the proposed metal building to be constructed at a later date. Commission questioned if the site should be considered under a Rezoning, rather than Site Plan Review, and, also if the Village has jurisdiction over State owned land. The Deputy Clerk was instructed to contact the Village Attorney for an opinion on both matters. There was discussion as to zoning status of the land directly north of the site, which would be Shoreview property; Commission requested the Deputy Clerk contact the City of Shoreview to determine the zoning district adjacent. It was noted that the land may be a designated wildlife preserve. Member Thorn stated he was not opposed to the proposal, however, he preferred to have the landscape plan submitted for review since the facility is operating in and possibly adjacent to a residential zone. A representative from MnDot advised that the County Road I improvements will eliminate most of the right-of-way and that caused the delay in submission of the landscape plan; he stated that since the improvement plans have been projected for a longer time span, MnDot would be willing to submit the landscape plan at • this time. Member McGraw commented that the neighboring property should be considered when hearing variances for landscaping and driveway width; he preferred the driveways be kept within the current requirements and agreed that the landscape plan should be submitted now. There was discussion of the placement of the landscaping further south on the property; MnDot advised that driveway entrances, gas pump placement, and underground tanks prohibits placement further south on the site. MnDot representatives advised that the State is considering removal of the tanks in conjunction with the proposed site modifications; no decision has been made to date. Member Probst questioned if there was a need to retain the existing driveway entrance and if there were any traffic concerns. He also asked if any mature trees would be removed in conjunction with the expansion. MnDot representatives advised that retention of the existing driveway would help maintain traffic flow, and the new entrance would allow heavy equipment easier access to County Road I. They advised that only two Burr Oak Trees would be removed; noted the two trees are not in good shape at this time. The Planner commented that two access points would not be a problem in this area; • traffic in the area is not excessive and two driveway entrances may help trucks • gain safer access to County Road I. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, January 6, 1988 Page 4 CASE #88-01 (Cont'd) Chairman Curtis continuing this matter until such time as • the following items have been accomplished: 1. A landscape plan has been submitted and reviewed by the Planner; advised applicant that the landscaping could be of a decorative nature at this time, rather than for screening purposes, due to proposed County Road I improvements which are pending. 2. Shoreview has been contacted, to determine zoning status of adjacent land to the north of the site, and, had reviewed the proposed plans for modification of the site; comments or concerns are welcomed. 3. An opinion from the Village Attorney has been received, as to whether or not the parcel should be Rezoned, as the present use is more commonly associated with an industrial zoning district, rather than a residential district. There was discussion regarding the variance request for a wider driveway; it was the consensus of the members that the applicant should demonstrate sufficient cause for justification of the wider access. It was noted that a factor such as the turning radius of plowing equipment encumbering traffic flow along County Road I, could be considered as a valid reason for the request. MnDot representatives advised they they currently stop the traffic flow along County Road I, using flagmen, to allow the snow plows to exit the premises. The Chairman questioned if postponement of this matter, for one month, would hamper their construction plans. MnDot representatives advised a delay would not cause them a hardship. Meury moved, seconded by Petersen, that Case No. 88-01, Site Plan Review for Expansion of MN/DOT Truck facility on County Road I, be tabled to the next regular meeting of the Commission to be held on February 3, 19988, at 7:30 p.m. , at the Village Hall, pending receipt of the additional information, as requested and recorded in the minutes this date. Motion carried unanimously. (8-0) Member Petersen stated that he would not usually favor a motion to table, however, he voted in favor because the applicant advised it would not hamper construction plans. There was discussion relative to the proposed driveway variance request, and retention of the second driveway for employee access. Martin moved, seconded by Petersen, that Commission recommend Council request the Planner contact the County and State Highway Departments to determine what their minimum and maximum driveway width requirements are, and, direct the Planning Commission to study and compare information with our current zoning code requirements to determine if an amendment to the Arden Hills Code would be appropriate. Motion carried. (8-0) SPEC. EVENT SIGNS Councilmember Winiecki reviewed the Commission proposal sent to Council, relative to amending the Sign Ordinance as it relates to Special Event/Temporary Signs permitted per year in the Village. Winiecki explained that Council reviewed the survey information compiled, and the Commission recommendation; consensus was that a more lenient policy should be studied. It was suggested that either a longer period of time than 10 days per permit issued, or a longer time span between permits issued should be included in the amendment. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, January 6, 1988 Page 5 SIGNS (Cont'd) Commission discussed the current requirements for these • signs; noting that Council approval of such signs is necessary. Malone pointed out that with the current requirements, Council has no basis for denial of such requests and some businesses abuse the privilege; either by requesting numerous signs per year or leaving the signs in place for a longer period of time than the 10 days currently permitted. There was discussion relating to appropriate definition of location where these signs are permitted; questioned what determines premises in order for signs to be limited to three per location. Members gave the example of McGuire's Inn; if two different vendors requested three signs for that location within a given calendar year, would both requests be honored. Member Malone suggested location be identified as per the definition of "Business", outlined in our current Sign Ordinance No. 216. Petersen moved, seconded by Thorn, that Commission recommend Council consideration of an amendment to the Village Sign Ordinance No. 214, which limits the number of Special Event Signs to a maximum of three (3) per calendar year, per location as defined in Ordinance #216, Section II, B, 4; for a period of ten (10) days, with a minimum of thirty (30) days between permits issued. Motion carried unanimously. (8-0) UNDEVEL. LAND STUDY Chairman Curtis reported that he, Paul Malone and the Clerk Administrator had met with a financial consultant to discuss the Tax Increment Financing process as it would relate to the undeveloped land along the intersection of Highways I-694 and 35W. Curtis reviewed how the process works and reviewed the criteria which qualifies a development project. Member Malone explained that the first step is to determine what type of development the Village would prefer to have at the location; after that has been decided, Arden Hills may want to solicit developers and develop the details of the project or wait for developers to inquire and submit a proposal. He noted that estimated cost for compiling such a plan would be $5,000 to $10,000. The Planner commented that this type of plan composition develops over a one or two month period; also, he pointed out that establishing a tax increment district would allow the imposition of more stringent regulations on the land than current zoning requires. There was discussion regarding the option of waiting for a good development plan proposal for the land. Member Probst favored further investigation of Tax Increment Financing; he point out that the area is essentially a "gateway" to Arden Hills, and residents of this community have come to expect high quality development in the area. It was his opinion that it is important to preserve the Village image and stressed taking action by planning development, rather than taking risks of having small parcels being developed by lower quality industrial users. • Curtis suggested Commission currently direct their efforts toward determining what type of development should be encouraged for the area. Probst commented that the study should include costs and financial risks. FpMinutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, January 6, 1988 Page 6 LAND STUDY (Cont'd) Members discussed the formation of a subcommittee to isstudy and recommend feasible development of the area; suggested that input could be requested from other sources, such as the Planner and Bond Counsel. Commission concurred that the Planner be requested to prepare a report for the February 3rd meeting, which explores development options for the area discussed. Chairman Curtis encouraged the members to consider volunteering to serve on a subcommittee to further study this matter prior to the next regular meeting. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Winiecki reported on items of interest to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT Curtis moved, seconded by Malone, that the meeting be adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (8-0) Robert Curtis, Chairman