Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-05-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda • AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. VILLAGE HALL 1. Call to Order and Roll Call . 2. Approval of Minutes of June 7, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting. 3. Public Hearing on Industrial P.U.D. Concept Plan; Cardiac Pacemakers , Inc. , 4100 Hamline Avenue North. 4. Discussion on potential lot split for property on south side of Amble Road; three lots east of Hamline Avenue; Thomas Wegleitner for Tom and Jerry Weaver and Geraldine Cuff. 5. Council Report. • 6. Adjournment. ********************************************* PLEASE CALL THE VILLAGE OFFICE IF YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING 633-5676 ********************************************* CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 1989 • CALL TO Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chairman Probst ORDER called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL The following members were present: Chairman Probst, members Carlson, Piotrowski, Martin, and Zehm, as well as Planner John Bergly, Councilmember JoAnn Growe, City Administrator Gary Berger and Administrative Secretary Mary Ann DeLaRosa. Member Winiecki had notified the Commission that she would be out of town for the July and August meetings. McGraw notified the Commission that he would be unable to attend this meeting. Also absent were: Woodburn, Curtis, Ashbach, and Petersen. APPROVE MINUTES Piotrowski moved, seconded by Zehm, that the June 7 minutes be approved as submitted. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE #89-10, Chairman Probst opened the meeting for the CARDIAC PACEMAKERS purpose of a public hearing to consider an INDUSTRIAL PUD, application from Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. , 4100 HEARING Hamline Avenue, to consider an Industrial Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for expansion of • existing facilities and site plan approval for Phase I construction. Administrative Secretary DeLaRosa verified that the Notice of Hearing was published in the New Brighton Bulletin and mailed to affected property owners on June 21, 1989. Planner Bergly referred to his report of July 5 and noted that CPI was using the PUD approach for their master plan of existing and future buildings. He noted that CPI has acquired the former Arden Hills Sports Club, which is planned for future expansion. Bergly noted the property would be developed in three stages. The first stage in 1989 includes a total renovation of the Sports Club, with a skyway access. 959 parking spaces will be added along with 90,000 square feet of floor area. This building will be designated as Building "E". The second stage in 1992 will include a parking lot extension, turn around and 135,000 square feet for Building "F", as well as a 12,600 square foot addition to Building "D". Stage II also included remodeling/renovation of the center parking lot. Required parking for this stage is 1,374 stalls, while 1,179 stalls are proposed. Phase III will be started in 1995 and will include 60,000 square feet for Building "G" which will also have a skyway link. The PUD Concept Plan is the master plan for development of this 40 acre site. Planner Bergly stated this is not the typical PUD the Commission reviews, • in that the zoning and use are already established, the initial development is there and the land is divided into four parcels without JULY 5, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, PAGE TWO • regard to lot lines. Bergly noted that the applicant is requesting approval of the proposed PUD Concept Plan and Site Plan approval for the former sports club building and site. Planner Bergly then highlighted the following considerations for the proposal: 1. Appearance (site aesthetics and amenities). 2. Expansion into former sports club (currently the building interior is being remodeled). 3. Skyways (linking the old buildings with the new buildings). 4. Access (one additional access will be provided and two existing drives will be removed in 1989). 5. Development intensity (setbacks are not an issue, since new buildings or additions are on the site interior). 6. Views from the site (Building "G" will be exposed to the northwest). 7. Parking (548 spaces are hoped to be provided on adjacent property. If not available, a second level of parking will be used. City needs written documentation that this will be provided, if deemed necessary. 8. Surface water management (applicant indicated he had approval from Rice Creek Watershed District). 9. Traffic (traffic study may be necessary as parking spaces will slightly more than double at ultimate development). 10. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW is required for projects over 200,000 square feet - this proposal will have approximately 207,600 • square feet of new floor area). 11. Site plan review for Phase I (former health club will be changed very slightly from the existing conditions). There will be minimal land- scaping in Stage I, with heavier landscaping later. Applicant will be working on interior site improvements and the loading docks will also be interior, so there won't be as much exposure to them. Planner Bergly noted that if items 7, 8, 9, and 10 above are resolved, the plan is in order. Mr. Terry Wobken. architect, reviewed the proposed drawings for the Commission and audience and stated they are in the process of demolition and renovation now, with a demolition and foundation permit. The applicant is also pursuing additional parking spaces at grade now. He noted that the exterior will be natural concrete and 50% of the office area walls will be tinted light bronze glass windows. A new pent house will contain the major ventilation equipment. Chairman Probst asked for questions or comments from the Commission. Member Carlson asked how far the parking lot to the north would be from the site. Mr. Wobken noted it was adjacent to the site. Member Martin asked if that parking area is not available, where would the needed parking area be. Wobken stated that the Building "G" area would be revised to accommodate the parking space. He also noted that the site • would contain office/laboratory/and light manufacturing uses). JULY 5, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, PAGE THREE Mr. Dale DeVories, from CPI, stated the same uses today are planned for • the future, there will be no change in the types of materials, operations or processes from today. Member Zehm asked where the on-site experimental animals would be kept. It was noted that no animals will be kept outside and CPI will continue to house the animals internally. Member Piotrowski asked about a landscaping time frame and suggested that landscaping be completed sometime within one year. Chair Probst noted CPI now has demolition and foundation permits but would need PUD approval in order to continue with their proposal. He asked if the dates noted in the different phases were construction or occupation dates. Mr. DeVories noted they are construction dates. Probst also expressed concerns over the lack of additional landscaping along Fernwood as well as a proof of parking issue. He wondered if the Council should ask for something more for a written guarantee on the parking space issue and felt the City Attorney should advise on this issue. He also asked if it would be in the City's best interest to require an EAW, even if the project is scaled down to under 200,000 square feet. Planner Bergly noted that traffic and wetland issues would be the biggest issues addressed by the EAW. Member Martin asked about toxic emissions, noting that CPI indicated they are not changing anything, but asked if they are storing any toxic • chemicals. Mr. DeVories stated they do store only minimal toxic items which are used in electronic manufacturing. Chair Probst asked for questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Roger Aiken, 4360 North Hamline, noted he saw an article in the newspaper stating CPI emitted large amounts of sulphur dioxide. Mr. DeVories acknowledged the article but noted that five days later a retraction was printed noting that the emission was 13 times less than what was previously stated, and yes, the Arden Hills facility was responsible for the emissions. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed at 8:14 P.M. Commissioner Carlson moved to recommend approval of Case No. 89-10 for the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan and the site plan for Phase I subject to the following stipulations: 1. That the City receive a traffic study prior to approval of the concept plan. 2. That an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be required. 3. That the City receive some type of assurance regarding the additional • JULY 5, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, PAGE FOUR parking spaces required. (City Attorney should possibly draft a document that applicant can execute to assure needed parking spaces will be available). Commissioner Piotrowski seconded the motion, adding a friendly amendment to include additional plantings along Fernwood and Building "E". The friendly amendment was accepted. Chair Probst reiterated the motion for the audience: noting recommendation of approval of the PUD concept plan for Phase I subject to receipt of an EAW, completed traffic study, additional landscaping along Building "E", and assurance by the City Attorney that the additional parking spaces would be available if the adjacent property is not available. He also felt this approval should be subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Commissioner Zehm suggested amending the motion to separate Phase I from the motion and to require the traffic study, Rice Creek approval, parking assurances and the EAW for Phase II of the Concept Plan. Voting on the suggestion to amend the original motion: Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 • Commissioner Zehm moved, seconded by Commissioner Piotrowski, to recommend approval of the site plan for Phase I, but to require a traffic study, Rice Creek and engineering approvals and EAW prior to submission of the concept plan, which should be within the next six months. Voting on the revised motion: Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PROPOSED Planner Bergly reviewed his July 5 memo regarding a LOT SPLIT, proposed lot split for Tom and Jerry Weaver and Geraldine WEGLEITNER Cuff, for property located three lots east of Hamline (WEAVER) Avenue on the south side of Amble Road. Bergly noted there is a rather large drainage easement in the center of the property. The applicants were asking for consideration of variances to the lot width and area requirements. The parcel contains 37,488 square feet and could be divided into two lots, one being 85'x132' and the other being 199'x 132' . Without variances, the lots could be divided into two parcels with one lot being 178' wide and the other 106' wide. As noted by Mr. Wegleitner, realtor representing the property owners, the owners would prefer a plan that includes both the variance and a partial easement vacation, as opposed to a plan that would include just an • easement vacation. It was also noted that the lots would be low and have a wetland area but could be filled somewhat to create a home pad. Mr. Wegleitner noted that RCWD felt this was too small an area for them to address and suggested the City decide how to proceed. J JULY 5, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, PAGE FIVE • Mr. Wegleitner noted he had spoken to Barry Peters, former City Engineer, and Peters felt the easement was large enough for adequate ponding. Mr. Roger Aiken, 4360 North Hamline, and owner of Lot 8, Borstad Addition, expressed concern over the ponding and drainage of his lot and was not comfortable with the proposed lot division. Mr. Wegleitner noted the applicants were looking at subdividing the property either with or without the variances. Chair Probst noted that subdivisions are not approved with variances and the Planning Commission would not grant a variance anyway, since no hardship has been shown. The Commission probably would grant a lot division if no variances or easement problems were involved. Mr. Weaver, co-owner of the property in question, indicated he would like g engineering review of after obtaining an en to come back to the Commission g the easement. He noted he had paid assessments on this property for sewer and water since 1970, and wanted to state that for the record. COUNCIL Councilmember Growe reported on items of interest to the REPORT Commission, including action taken by the Council on previous planning commission cases. She and Administrator Berger also updated the members on the Lake Johanna sewage leak, as well as on the appointment of a new engineering firm, Maier Stewart and Associates, the creation of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1 and 2, a proposal for redevelopment by Trammel Crowe, and what Delta Environmental Consultants proposed for Lake Johanna. MISCELLANEOUS Chair Probst brought up the issue that many of the remaining vacant lots in the City may be substandard, or a wetland area may be involved, and felt this issue should possibly be addressed or taken into considertion in the future. Would the Commission be interested in changing the ordinance to allow for this so there wouldn't be the need for so many variances in the future? ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner Zehm moved, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, that the meeting be adjourned. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:17 P.M. Dennis Probst, Chairman