Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda REVISED - AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7 , 1989 - 7 :30 P.M. VILLAGE HALL 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of May 3, 1989, meeting 3. Case No. 89-06 Side yard variance of eight feet and lakeshore setback variance of five feet for an attached screened porch at 3220 North Hamline Avenue for Tom Lynch. 4. Case No. 89-07 Public hearing for a special use permit to allow a "miscellaneous tower" (4' X 6' satelite dish) for Farmers Insurance Group at Eight Pine Tree Drive. 5. Case No. 89-08 Variance to allow an accessory structure nearer to the street than the principle building at the Roseville Bank, • 4016 Lexington Avenue North. 6. Preliminary Discussion: Proposed Use of "Undesignated" Retail Space, Goodyear Service Center/Kennedy Transmission Site, 3757-3763 Lexington Avenue i s, C.G. Rein Company. Adjournment • MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 1989, 7:30 P.M. - CITY 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, Raymond McGraw, Scott Petersen, Barbara Piotrowski, Dorothy Zehm, Jeanne Winiecki and Robert Woodburn. Absent: Dave Carlson, Peter Martin, Dan Ashbach and Robert Curtis. Also Present: Planner John Bergly, Councilmember JoAnn Growe, Clerk Administrator Gary Berger and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. REVISE AGENDA Chairman Probst advised commission members of the Agenda revisions; Case #89-07, Public Hearing to be the first item of business and the addition of a Preliminary Discussion item prior to the Council Report. APPROVE MINUTES Deputy Clerk Iago notified Chairman Probst she was contacted by Member Carlson with a correction to the Planning minutes of 5-3-89; the vote on page 5 should read: "(. . ; Carlson and Petersen opposed) (7-2) Piotrowski moved, seconded by Winiecki, that the Minutes of the May 3, 1989 Planning Commission meeting be approved as corrected. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) PUBLIC HEARING CASE #89-07; SUP Chairman Probst opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m. SATELLITE DISH and Deputy Clerk Iago verified that the Notice of • ANTENNA, 8 PINE Hearing was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on TREE DR, FARMERS 5/17/89 and mailed to affected property owners on INSURANCE GROUP 5/15/89. Planner Bergly referred to his report of 6-7-89 and explained that "miscellaneous towers" are allowed in all zoning districts by special use permits. A public hearing is required when applying for a special use permit. Bergly advised Council had issued a "temporary" SUP for this antenna to be installed and operated for a one-month period; the applicant had moved his business from a neighboring city and needed the antenna for operation of the business; the applicant was unaware that Arden Hills requires a SUP and a public hearing. The Planner outlined the following considerations: 1. The 4 ft. x 6 ft. antenna is currently located on the roof of the building at 8 Pine Tree Drive; the Commission and Council have the opportunity to evaluate the impact of the antenna and determine if it should be relocated or removed entirely. 2. The antenna is movable on the roof and completely removable from the site within 24 hrs; the temporary SUP was issued with the understanding final action would not be prejudiced by the temporary permit. 3. There is an existing 6 ft. diameter dish antenna on the east end of the same building; the City has no record of a permit for this antenna. 4. The aerial photo attached to the Planner's report show the building in relationship to surrounding uses; the antenna is not visible from the south, due to screening by mechanical enclosure. Visibility from the north, east and west is minimal due to the scale of the antenna and the distance. Gary Myhre, representing the applicant and Contel ASC, explained the installation of the antenna and mobility; he noted the antenna is usually installed on a temporary basis, due to the fact the company may move in the future. Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, June 7, 1989 Page 2 CASE #89-07 (Cont'd) Planner Bergly recommended approval of the SUP and listed rationale on page 2 of his report. He suggested Commission may wish to review the code to discuss whether or not this type of • request should be included in the "Miscellaneous Towers" classification of the Zoning Code or if the procedure for application and review should be changed. Chairman Probst questioned if there was anyone present who wished to be heard. Sheri Wingard, property manager at 8 Pine Tree Drive, was present to represent the property owner and spoke in support of the proposed antenna installation. Chairman Probst asked if there were any further comments. There was no response and the public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. Zehm moved, seconded by Winiecki, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #89-07, Special Use Permit to install a 4 ft. x 6 ft. "miscellaneous tower" for Farmers Insurance Group at 8 Pine Tree Drive, based on the following factors: 1. The antenna is not visible from nearby residences, 2. The antenna is barely visible from nearby businesses and streets, and 3. The antenna is far less obtrusive than most of the rooftop mechanical equipment in the vicinity. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) Chairman Probst questioned what steps staff would be taking to notify the property owner the existing antenna on the roof requires a special use permit. Planner Bergly advised he has discussed the matter briefly with Council and they indicated the property managers in all buildings in the City should be notified of the Ordinances pertaining to antennas and other matters such as; parking, • outside storage, etc. Bergly stated a letter is being drafted by staff for Council review. Wingert, property manager for 8 Pine Tree Drive, advised Commission the tenant had been advised of the requirements and would make application for the permit. Commission discussed painting the antenna and if the reception would be altered by painting. Myrhe stated the antenna can be painted, however, some manufacturers do not recommend painting. Member Woodburn recalled neighborhood concern relative to a ground-based antenna along County Road E and another in the Fairview Avenue area. Councilmember Winiecki suggested the "Satellite Dish Antennae" be separated from the "Miscellaneous Towers" definition. She noted that applications for towers, such as radio towers, have been controversial in the city. CASE #89-06; VAR'S Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 6-7-89, relative to SIDEYARD & LKSHORE, an application for an eight foot sideyard setback 3220 NO. HAMLINE, variance and a five foot lakeshore setback variance, 3220 T. LYNCH No. Hamline Avenue, Thomas Lynch. The Planner briefly explained the background of previous variances granted for • this property; a larger lot was divided requiring a Lot Area Variance and a setback variance for a patio was also approved. He stated the owner designed a home to fit the unconventionally shaped lot and now is requesting a variance to construct a screened porch over the existing concrete patio. Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, June 7, 1989 Page 3 CASE #89-06 (Cont'd) Bergly reviewed the considerations listed in his report: • -A very small triangular screen porch could be built on the lot without a variance. -The porch will be 20 ft. from the house to the southwest; if the lots were redivided so the lot line fell exactly midpoint, no variance would be required. -Neighboring property owners to the southwest and northeast have no objections to the variances. -The 5 ft. variance for lakeshore setback is in keeping with the principal that the setback is established by the placement of the homes on either side. -The landscaped area on the lot will not be reduced as the porch will be constructed over an existing concrete patio. Bergly recommended Commission consider the above points as appropriate findings to support action to approve the requested variances. Tom Lynch, 3220 No. Hamline, explained he purchased the original lot in 1965 and divided the parcel over the years into standard lots. Lynch stated in 1975 his wife was diagnosed with acute asthma and advised by her physician to move away from the lake. In 1980 he decided to split the lot and build the current residence; at the time of the lot split he assured the city the home could be constructed without any variances. Lynch stated the city insisted on an application for the concrete slab, although at the time the slab was constructed the ordinances did not specifically define "patios". Lynch explained that after the Board of Appeals meeting he had developed two plans for redesigning the porch; Plan A lessens the requested setback to 5 ft. • and Plan B requires no sideyard setback and adds to the requested lakeshore setback making it 2 ft. closer to the lake. Commission was referred to the Board of Appeals minutes of 5-23-89 recommending approval of the requested variances and suggested Mr. Lynch consider redesigning the porch to lessen the requested sideyard setback variance. Member Winiecki advised she could not support the proposed variance; she recalled her opposition to the lot area variance when the lot split was approved. She noted that approval of the lot area variance was based on Mrs. Lynch's illness and it does not appear that the proposed variances are related directly to the illness which was defined as the hardship and basis for approval of the prior variance. Lynch discussed the availability of the County property, which was not available for purchase at the time of the lot area variance request, and explained the land is now available for purchase. Lynch stated he was advised not to purchase the property due to the fact there is a well located on the land which would be expensive to cap. He also discussed the fact that the screened porch does not relate directly to Mrs. Lynch's illness, however, she has been advised to stay out of the wind as much as possible. Member Petersen questioned if the applicant had inquired as to the purchase of land from the adjacent neighbor. Lynch stated if the land was purchased from the adjacent neighbor it would make • that lot substandard. Winiecki stated that the aggregate setback for the lots would have to total 25 ft. ; if the lot lines were adjusted the variance would be on the other lot. Member Woodburn stated that the City owes Mr. Lynch a debt of gratitude for his years of service as a Planning Commission member. He recalled the lot split was approved although the Planner did not recommend approval of a lot split which created a substandard lot and there did not appear to be a justifiable hardship. Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, June 7, 1989 Page 4 Case #89-06 (Cont'd) Woodburn stated the 75 ft. setback from the lake is mandated by State law and he did not favor recommending approval for the variances requested. • Member Piotrowski advised that the Board of Appeals was not aware of the previously granted variances; stated the Board may have utilized the information prior to making a recommendation for approval. She did not support the requested variances as it appears there is no justifiable hardship for either request. Winiecki moved, seconded by Zehm, that commission recommend to Council denial of Case #89-06, an application for an 8 ft. Sideyard Setback Variance and a 5 ft. Lakeshore Setback Variance, 3220 North Hamline Avenue, Thomas Lynch, based on lack of an identifiable hardship. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) In discussion, Chairman Probst expressed concern that Commission would be setting a precedent for difficult building sites remaining in the City by recommending approval of the requested variances. Piotrowski moved that Commission table action on this matter until the next regular Planning meeting to allow the Board of Appeals an opportunity to review the actions on the previously granted variances for this property and reconsider their recommendation. Motion failed for lack of second. Member Winiecki noted there is sufficient time prior to the Council meeting on June 26 for the Board to meet to discuss the matter and make a recommendation to Council. • CASE #89-08; VAR. Planner Bergly referred Commission to his report of ALLOW ACCESSORY 6-7-89, relative to the request for a variance to allow STRUCTURE IN FRONT an accessory building in the front yard of a principal YARD, 4016 LEXINGTON building, 4106 Lexington Avenue, Roseville Bank. AVE, ROSEVILLE BANK Bergly noted the Council had approved a request to allow an automatic teller machine in a steel enclosure in the fall of 1987. The zoning ordinance stipulates that the work required by the variance must begin within six months of approval and concluded within one year from approval. Since the time has lapsed, the applicant is now reapplying and requesting a variance only from the requirement to allow the accessory structure in the front yard; previous approval included front yard setback variances along County Road F and Lexington Avenue. The Planner stated the building proposed is to be brick rather than the steel enclosure initially approved. Signage is illustrated on the drawings attached to the application and will conform with the ordinance requirement of no more than 10% of the area of the facade. He noted the attached site plan shows the proposed new location of the ATM relative to the required setbacks and traffic circulation pattern; the plan conforms with all requirements of the ordinance except the accessory building in the front yard of a principal structure. He recommended approval of the revised request and listed four reasons in his report to support the recommendation. Commission asked the following questions: • Is this a drive-up facility or do customers enter this building? Will the facility be landscaped and lighted and to what extent? -Has the applicant considered alternate locations on the site for the ATM? -Will parking be sufficient upon removal of parking spaces to accommodate the ATM? -Will the ATM block traffic views from either adjacent street? Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, June 7, 1989 Page 5 CASE #89-08 (Cont'd) Planner Bergly explained the facility will service drive-up customers only. He advised he has had discussions with the applicant regarding a lessened landscape plan in lieu of the • building meeting the required setbacks; he stated there may be some leeway in the landscape plan and he will continue to discuss this matter with the applicant. Winiecki commented the resubmitted plan is more attractive than the building previously approved. She referred to the Board of Appeals suggestion that the building be placed in the rear of the site and noted she preferred to exchange its visibility for the landscaping; the location in front of the building provides a safety factor for customers. A representative from the Roseville Bank explained the main reason for the requested variance was to offer safety to the bank customers; the automatic teller is currently located in the rear of the bank. She also stated the bank feels this plan is more attractive than the previously approved plan. She explained the lighting would be only on the signage and for the customers at the drive-up level; it will be low intensity and meet ordinance requirements. The representative explained the reason for the delay in constructing the ATM was due to the recent purchase of the bank facility. The representative from the bank advised that alternatives were considered for location of the ATM; she reviewed the alternative locations. The reasons stated for the requested variances were: customer safety, ease of traffic flow, and location in front provides for future bank expansion to the rear. Planner Bergly noted the parking requirements for the site will still meet ordinance requirements and the building will not block traffic views from either • adjacent street. Member Piotrowski referred Commission to the site plan and indicated an area that would appear to be appropriate for location of the ATM. She stated the Board of Appeals expressed the opinion the banks only reason for locating the ATM in the front yard was for advertising purposes. Piotrowski expressed concern that approval would set a precedent for other banking establishments; she did not believe there is a justifiable hardship. She also noted the bank may require more parking if the facility expands in the future and a parking variance may be necessary. Chairman Probst and Member Woodburn shared the concern relative to setting a precedent for other banking establishments. There was discussion relative to lighting on the facility. The bank representative advised they would adhere to the requirements in the city code. McGraw moved, seconded by Zehm, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #89-08, Variance to allow an accessory building in the front yard of a principal building (Automatic Teller Machine) , 4016 Lexington Avenue North, Roseville Bank, based on the following: 1. The new proposal conforms to the zoning ordinance to a greater extent than the previously granted request. 2. The brick enclosure will be a more attractive addition to the site than • the previously approved metal enclosure. 3. The size and scale of the structure is not as obtrusive as other accessory buildings (mainly garages) for which the applicable ordinance requirement was intended. 4. The standard front yard setback in the I-1 district of 55 feet is met by the accessory building. Motion carried. (McGraw, Zehm, Petersen and Winiecki voting in favor; Probst, Piotrowski and Woodburn opposed) (4-3) Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, June 7, 1989 Page 6 DISC; USE OF Planner Bergly explained C.G. Rein Company had contacted RETAIL SPACE, him to discuss a possible use for the "undesignated" LEXINGTON AVE, retail space at the Goodyear Service Center/Kennedy C.G. REIN CO. Transmission site, 3757-3763 Lexington Avenue. William Sikora, Project Manager with C.G. Rein Company, explained he had been approached by Clarks Submarine relative to locating a restaurant in the unoccupied space at the Lexington Avenue site. He explained the Planner advised him of the City Code which prohibits two "fast-food" restaurants within one-quarter mile of each other. He questioned if Clarks Submarine is considered a fast-food restaurant and if it is not what is the procedure to locate the business at this site. Sikora introduced Clark Armstad, owner of Clarks Submarine Sandwich, who explained the business operation. Armstad stated the business has been in operation for 30-years and advised the business operation is really no more a fast-food restaurant than a delicatessen; he does not prepare bulk food, sandwiches are made to order, and a dining area is provided. Sikora referred to the definition of fast-food restaurants and reviewed the criteria, a number of which must be met to define a fast-food restaurant. He asked for input from Commission as to the intent of the definition and questioned how the determination is made by the City as to whether or not Clarks Submarine is defined as a fast-food restaurant. The Planner stated the Zoning Administrator would determine whether or not this appeal is appropriate; he deferred explaining the intent of the code requirement to members of the Commission. He reviewed the procedure for determining if the • business meets the fast-food definition and the process for an appeal. Members Woodburn, Winiecki and Zehm offered background as to the intent of the code definition and requirement; the city preferred to prohibit a string/strip of "fast-food" restaurants in the business district of the city. There was discussion relative to Clark Submarine percentage of takeout business, seating and how it meets the criteria of a fast-food restaurant. After discussion, Sikora requested Commission was take a "straw vote"; Commission members opposed any type of vote on this matter. Chairman Probst offered the Commission consensus that they would strongly support enforcement of the requirement and the intent of the city to prohibit a string of fast-food restaurants in the business district. He stated the Commission is not opposed to Clarks Submarine. Sikora and Armstad thanked the Commission for their time. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Growe reported on items of interest to the Commission. ADJOURN McGraw moved, seconded by Winiecki, that the meeting be adjourned at 9:00 p.m. All voted in favor. (7-0) • Dennis Probst, Chairman