Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. VILLAGE HALL 1. Call to Order and Roll Call . 2. Approval of Minnutes of March 1, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting. 3. Case No. 88-30 Public hearing on P.U.D. General Plan, rezoning from R-1 to R-4 and preliminary plat; for Continental Development Corporation; on property generally located between Parkshore Drive, Old Highway 10 and I-694. 4. Case No. 89-03 Site Plan revision for McDonald' s fast food restaurant; Steve Halverson, applicant; generally located at County Road E and Hamlin Avenue. 5. Council report. 6. 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, April 5, 1989, 7:30 p.m. - Village Hall CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chairman Probst • called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Dennis Probst, Dave Carlson, Peter Martin, Scott Petersen, Jeanne Winiecki and Robert Woodburn. Absent: Raymond McGraw, Barbara Piotrowski, Dorothy Zehm, Dan Ashbach and Robert Curtis. Also Present: Planner John Bergly, Councilmember JoAnn Growe, Clerk Administrator Gary Berger and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. APPROVE MINUTES Martin moved, seconded by Winiecki, that the Minutes of the March 1, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting be approved as submitted. All voted in favor. (6-0) PUBLIC HEARING CASE #88-30; PUD Chairman Probst opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m. GENERAL PLAN APRVL, and Deputy Clerk Iago verified that the Notice of Hearing PREL. PLAT APRVL, was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on March 22 REZONING R-1 TO R-4, and mailed to the affected property owners on March CONTINENTAL DVLPMT, 14, 1989. OLD HWY 10 & I-694 Planner Bergly referred Commission to his report dated 4-5-89, and stated the Arden Hills Council approved the PUD Concept Plan in February 1989 for less than • 10 units per acre with conditions as listed on page one of his report. Bergly explained that pursuant to the PUD requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, the developer is requesting approval of the "General Plan" for the PUD Concept Plan as approved in February and the plan submitted has been revised to comply with the conditions set forth by Council. The specific action now required includes: General Plan approval, Preliminary Plat approval and Rezoning from R-1 to R-4 for all of the land in the PUD, except the park dedication. The Planner recommended the Preliminary Plat and Rezoning be contingent upon approval of the PUD General Development Plan; the division pattern would not be appropriate for any development other than the one proposed by this applicant. Planner Bergly stated page two of his report outlines that the plan meets Ordinance Compliance; he noted one handicapped parking stall is within the parking setback area and could easily be moved to the south ten feet to meet the required setback. Bergly briefly explained the substantial change in the conditions and character of the area since the property was last zoned and identified the basis for rezoning the property; he noted the zoning changes to the north of this site. The Planner explained the Preliminary Plat dividing the property into five lots (plus the proposed park dedication) is principally for for mortgage purposes and creates a separate lot for the farmstead. He advised the four apartment lots • would have cross-easements for access, utilities, drainage, use of open space and maintenance. Bergly advised a Final Plat would have to be submitted at a later date; he noted there is a provision in the Ordinance whereby the City could waive the Final Plat requirement. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 4-5-89 Page 2 CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) Bergly also reviewed the items listed on pages 4, 5, and 6 of his report, under Miscellaneous Components: • Trail: The trail is shown as a 12-ft wide, gravel surfaced trail. In discussions with the Fire Chief, he suggested the developer build the trail over a ten-ton, 20-foot-wide road bed to accommodate fire trucks. Bergly stated it is his understanding that would be well-beyond the need for fire trucks and this matter should be discussed further. Handicapped Parking: Bergly suggested a sidewalk system be provided around the north and south ends of Building No. 1 for handicapped/wheelchair accessibility purposes. He also noted the area for the handicapped parking spaces should be moved to meet the setback requirements from Parkshore Drive. Traffic: The Planner reviewed the traffic study prepared by SEH Engineers and concluded the increased traffic should not greatly impact the intersections included in the study. Lighting Plan: Bergly stated lighting at the rear of Building 1 for handicapped access should be provided and also at the handicap parking lot. He explained that normally lighting on the trail would be encouraged, however, in this case attempts will be made to discourage late evening or night time use of the trail by non-project residents. Park Dedication: Planner Bergly advised the triangular property dedicated will provide a better entrance area to the park; he reviewed the amount of land dedicated and explained the Council liaison negotiates the park dedication with the developer. • Landscaping Plan: Bergly indicated the developer submitted a preliminary landscape plan, however, the developer has expressed a desire to discuss the landscaping with the Commission. In reviewing the plan submitted, Bergly suggested there be more plantings to provide screening and sound separation along the I-694 side of the development, between Buildings 3 & 4; he also recommended a berm on the parking area island would help separate the buildings and may diffuse vehicle noise. Site Grading and Drainage Plan: Rice Creek Watershed District will review and approve the plan prior to site grading. Trash Storage: All trash containers will be kept in the garages with no exterior storage or dumpsters. Building Exteriors: Bergly advised Buildings 1 & 2 will have portions of the exterior in brick; Buildings 3 & 4 will have no brick exterior. Recreation: No recreation facilities, other than the trail, are shown on the Site Plan. Bergly suggested the possbility of a cash contribution for the remaining park dedication could be utilized for improvements in the park for use by the higher density housing surrounding the park. Staging: The developer proposes to do all the construction in one phase of approximately one year; staggered starting and completion dates would be used. • Sign: A sign is proposed in the entrance island; no plan is submitted at this time. Outline Specifications for Structures: These items will be addressed by the architect. Floor Plans: The architect will address this item. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 4-5-89 Page 3 CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) Chuck Cook, Continental Development, discussed three items relative to the proposal: • 1. The landscape plan submitted is above the minimum requirements specified by Ordinance and is in excess of the funds budgeted for the development; the architect has drafted a plan which eliminates 25 to 30% of the plantings and maintains ordinance requirements. Cook stated he believes the revised plan addresses the concerns expressed by the city in earlier discussions. 2. The roadway requirements suggested by the Fire Chief appear to be excessive; he recommended further review by the Commission. 3. The mix of apartment units may be subject to change after a market study has been completed; Cook preferred this item remain flexible rather than fixed at 32 one-bedroom units and 32 two-bedroom units. The architect for the project displayed the floor plan proposed for the buildings and described the "split entry" feature of the buildings; the front of the building has two floors and the rear of the building is three units high. He explained the wood frame construction; fire rated for center walls, unit separating walls, and the wall that forms the corridor connecting the two entrances. He noted the areas of brick on the exterior of the two buildings on the north of the site and the areas at the end of each building dormer; the rest of the building will be siding. The two buildings on the south end of the site will not have any brick on the exterior. The architect advised the mix of units will have minor impact on the exterior image of the buildings. • Member Martin questioned if the cross-easements for access would be provided as recommended in the Planner's report. Cook advised the easements would be included in the plat. Martin questioned if fire proof materials would be utilized for the porch overhang. The architect explained the buildings would meet all standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code. Martin commented on the decreased landscaping on the north side of Building #2; he questioned if there should be a buffer in this area to provide screening for the project from the adjacent park. The architect explained the decreased landscaping was to provide residents a "long" view of the lake from the balconies of the units. Member Woodburn questioned the length of the buildings and the height of the buildings with the walk-out units. The architect advised the buildings are 188 ft. long and 35 ft. in height. There was discussion relative to the inclusion of the farmstead in the density calculations; Chairman Probst advised the farmstead will remain as part of the IsPUD and this will not change without City approval of an amendment to the PUD. Probst advised the developer was given very clear direction that the Commission would not favor a development with a higher density than 10 units per acre. Member Winiecki questioned if the building footprint would change if the mix of units is changed. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 4-5-89 Page 4 CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) The architect explained the number of units will not change, only the number of bedrooms; the building footprint change would not be significant. He advised the building length would vary between 188 ft. and 200 ft. ; he stated the mix would be determined after the market study is completed. Planner Bergly recommended a screening wall or increased landscaping between Buildings 3 and 4, along I-694, to provide a sound barrier; he noted there is room for a berm in that area. Other Commission concerns expressed: -There should be a figure set for type of units included in the project to determine the length of the buildings. -The wall mounted lighting should be low intensity and not significantly impact the neighboring properties. -The building exterior materials and colors should be reviewed by the Commission. -Landscaping materials should meet minimum requirements. -Blacktopped surface for fire vehicle access should be comparable with the road surface required at the MSI site. Chairman Probst advised the developer that the Commission will not consider sign variances for this site; it does not appear there would be basis for requesting variances. Planner Bergly suggested the approval could stipulate that the developer determine exterior detail and colors of the buildings and return for Commission review and input. • Cook stated he would be agreeable to return with these items depending upon the time-frame. Probst explained the City has been working to develop the Gateway Business District with the land directly to the west of this site; he noted the City has retained a Financial Consultant to review the possibility of creating a Tax Increment Finance District that will encompass this site area. He questioned if there is an opportunity for the City to work with Cook, relative to the timing of the construction start for this project, to capture increments. Probst advised it is his understanding that once permits are issued it is not possible to take the increment from the parcel. Cook stated he would be agreeable to work with the City if it is a reasonable time period, within the next 90 to 120 days; he noted there was prior discussion of this matter with the City. Chairman Probst asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in favor of or opposed to the project. John Stenglein, 1785 West County Road F, spoke in favor of the proposed development; he stated it is his opinion the proposal is the highest and best use for the site and he is impressed with the plan. Stenglein stated the developer has done a wonderful job. There were no further comments from the floor. Chairman Probst closed the Public Hearing at 8:40 p.m. • Probst recommended the Engineer be requested to review and recommend the correct weight and width for the roadway utilized by fire vehicles. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 4-5-89 Page 5 CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) Winiecki questioned if the trailway would be included as part of the park dedication; she recommended that a provision be included that the development is responsible for keeping the roadway • clear. Probst advised the developer has not proposed to offer an easement. Winiecki questioned if the units would be air conditioned. Cook advised there would be either a condensor unit on each deck or a system which is a self-contained heating/cooling system which is installed in the exterior wall. He stated there are no rooftop units. Commission discussed the applicant returning for review of refined plans identifying the number of bedrooms, final building footprints and landscaping. It was noted that Council has the option to refer this matter back to Planning Commission for their review relative to the items noted. Cook advised he would be agreeable to return for Commission review dependent upon the time-frame; he advised he may have problems with the lending firm. Winiecki moved, seconded by Petersen, that Commission recommend to Council approval of the General Plan for a PUD, Case #88-30, for a 64-unit, 96 bedroom, apartment project, containing four 16-unit buildings; three buildings with a footprint of 188-feet in length and one building with a footprint under 200-feet in length, and one farmstead, conditioned upon the following Site Plan modifications recommendations by Planner and Commission: 1. The applicant adjust the handicap parking northeast of Building #1 to conform to the 20-foot parking setback. • 2. The applicant provide sidewalks around the ends of Building #I for handicap access between the garages and the walkout units. 3. The Engineer determine the roadway construction for accommodation of fire emergency vehicles, as per MSI and Land O'Lakes projects. 4. The applicant add lighting to the east entrance of Building #1 and to the handicap parking area. 5. The applicant make minor changes in the landscaping plan to enhance the screening from I-694 and to provide greater separation by adding landscaping and a berm to the parking island. 6. Items 1 thru 5 listed above will be approved by the Planner and Engineer prior to grading or building permits being issued. 7. The applicant will submit an entrance sign plan. 8. Approval of the Storm Water management Plan by the Rice Creek Watershed District. 9. The proposed Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for the project will be approved in conjunction with the PUD General Plan approval. 10. Approval of the final Plat prior to issuance of grading or building permits. 11. The applicant provide on the plat the cross-easements for access to lots which do not have access to a public road and for utilities, drainage, use of open space and maintenance. 12. The applicant return and provide Commission with final plan for the exterior complexion of the buildings, full landscape plan, lighting plan, and interior floor plan which displays the mix of units (number of bedrooms) . In discussion the architect proposed a mix of units as follows: 26 one bedroom • units, 32 two bedroom units and 6 three bedroom units. Winiecki stated Commission could review a proposal for a higher number of bedrooms if the market study shows a demand for a different mix of units. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 4-5-89 Page 6 CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) Planner Bergly noted the General Plan is in substantial compliance with the approved Concept Plan and the conditions of approval. He explained the planning components discussed in Section • VIII, G, 3, were discussed at the Concept stage and the determination was made that only the traffic component would be required; other components were either furnished or not required. Petersen moved, seconded by Winiecki, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #88-30, the Preliminary Plat containing five (5) lots and park dedication, subject to and based on the following: 1. The Preliminary Plat is necessary to accommodate financing of the proposed PUD project and is designed specifically for the General Plan. 2. The Preliminary Plat approval will be effective for development according to the PUD General Plan. If the General Plan is withdrawn prior to development, the Preliminary Plat will also be withdrawn. 3. Park Dedication will be resolved prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) There was discussion relative to rezoning of the farmstead lot; it was determined the farmstead could remain as part of the PUD and retain the R-1 zoning. Commission questioned if the developer would object to the farmstead lot remaining as R-1 Single-Family Residential District. Cook stated he would not object. • Carlson moved, seconded by Woodburn, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #88-30, the Rezoning from R-1 Single-Family Residential District to R-4 Multiple Dwelling District, with the exception of the park dedication and the farmstead lot which shall remain an R-1 District within the PUD, based on the following: 1. There have been zoning classification changes and development changes on adjacent properties to the north which indicate that a higher density than that shown on the Comprehensive Development Plan is appropriate. 2. A Concept Plan has been approved by the Village and a General Development Plan has been subsequently submitted for a PUD which is found to be acceptable to the Village and requires rezoning. 3. The rezoning will only be effective for development according to the approved PUD General Plan. If the General Plan is withdrawn prior to development, the rezoning will revert to the R-1 District. 4. Rezoning is necessary to accomplish the development objectives proposed in the PUD General Plan. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) CASE #89-03; SITE Planner Bergly referred Commission to his report of PLAN REVISION, 1313 4-5-89, relative to the application to construct a minor W. COUNTY ROAD E, addition to the McDonald's building; MCDONALD' S Bergly explained that any modification to an existing SUP would require an • amendment, however, he recommended in this case the application be treated as a minor site plan revision. He based the recommendation on the following; the proposal does not intensify the business activity, the proposal lessens traffic congestion and the proposed changes will be to the benefit of both the applicant and the Village. Commission concurred with reviewing this matter as a minor site plan revision. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 4-5-89 Page 7 CASE #89-03 (Cont'd) The Planner stated the building addition will not protrude out further than the existing pick-up window; the addition will provide an additional cashier's window and a small office. The addition of the cashier's window presumably will allow 45 more cars per hour to be served than the present one window system; this should mean shorter drive-through lines, reduced emissions from idling cars and faster service. All of these will benefit the citizens of Arden Hills, nearby businesses and travelers on Arden Hills' streets. Bergly recommended approval of the minor site plan revision. Commission questioned if the addition would decrease green space on the site. Steven Halverson, owner of McDonald's, advised there would be no decreased green space on the site. Carlson moved, seconded by Winiecki,that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #89-03, Minor Site Plan Revision for a Special Use Permit, 1313 West County Road E, McDonald's, for a six-foot by 40-foot addition to provide a cashier's window and office space, based on the following: 1. The modifications will create a healthier, safer and more convenient service for patrons and the general public. 2. The modifications are considered minor and the special use is existing, so treating the application as a site plan revision is appropriate. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) MISC. ITEMS Commission questioned staff relative to the following items: TRAILER; KEITHSON Commission requested staff contact Marcel Eibensteiner regarding the trailer parked on Highway 96 at the entrance to Keithson Drive; Eibensteiner advised he would move the trailer within 30 days at the March Commission meeting. SIGNAL LIGHTS; Commission questioned if the signal lights at Highways HWYS 10 & 96 10 and 96 are scheduled to be changed; the Clerk Administrator stated he would contact MN/DOT to determine what is being done at that intersection. LIGHTING; DAYBRIDGE Commission questioned if the lighting at Daybridge Center CNTR. , HAML.INE AVE. on Hamline Avenue had been reduced in intensity. Bergly stated he had contacted Daybridge and shields were placed on the wall-mounted lights; no further complaints have been received at City Hall relative to the lighting. SCREENING ANTENNAS; Commission questioned if McGuire's has submitted a plan MCGUIRE'S INN for screening the satellite dish antennas in the rear parking area at McGuire's Inn. Bergly explained the reasons for delay of the plan submittal; he stated staff would contact McGuire's and request the plan be submitted. UTILITY WORK; Commission suggested staff contact utility companies EDGEWATER AVE. to inform them of upcoming street improvements so they may coordinate utility work with the City. Member Carlson advised the City staff had repaired Edgewater Avenue and the NSP crew began digging in the street shortly thereafter; suggested coordinating efforts. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 4-5-89 Page 8 COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Growe reported on items of interest to • the Commission. GB DISTRICT; Commission questioned if Council has considered TASK FORCE forming or has made any appointments to an Economic Development Commission, as previously discussed, to study and work with the Financial Consultant. Clerk Administrator Berger advised Council has not taken any action on the matter to date. ADJOURN Petersen moved, seconded by Winiecki, that the meeting be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. All voted in favor. (6-0) Dennis Probst, Chairman w